위키백과:뉴스/후보/2013년 12월

12월 31일

---

[포스팅] 라트비아는 유로화 채택

노미네이터의 의견: 라트비아는 현지 시간으로 자정(22:00 UTC)에 유로화를 채택한다.보통 한 국가가 새로운 통화를 채택할 때 중요하고 주목할 만한 사건. --브루자옴 (대화) 14:27, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 반대 — 이것은 사실 뉴스가 아니다.그것은 오랫동안 계획/예정되어 왔다.BBC는 안드리스 빌크스 라트비아 재무장관이 "사회와 기업이 상황의 안정성과 예측 가능성을 보고 싶어하기 때문에 아무도 변하지 않을 것"이라고 말했다고 인용 보도했다.[1] 그것은 호흠처럼 들린다.

라트비아(대중:200만 명)의 추가는 유로존(3억3200만 명)을 크게 끌어올리지는 못할 것이다.폴란드(3800만 명)가 유로화를 채택하기로 한다면 이는 뉴스가 될 것이다.리투아니아 역시 인구가 적지만(300만 명 조금 안 되는) 그보다는 리투아니아 역시 인구수가 적지만, 리투아니아는 (소비에트 이전의) 발트 3개국을 모두 유로존에 편입시키기로 결정했다고 해도 그 의미가 더 클 것이다.Sca (대화) 16:31, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 지원 화폐를 바꾸는 모든 나라는 뉴스다.그리고 WP에 따르면:바이어스.

러그넛 17:25, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

왜? 여기서는 라트비아에 반대하는 것은 아무것도 없다. 라트비아의 경제 회복은 널리 칭찬되어 왔다.다만 이것이 유로존과 큰 차이가 없을 것이다.Sca(토크)

• 지지세가 약해 유로화 국가가 17개국에 불과해 작은 추가국이라도 추가하면 의미가 있어 보인다.리투아니아는 다른 발트해 국가들 없이 어떤 면에서 '혼자 간다'는 점이 오히려 뉴스거리가 되는 것 같다.하지만 다음 것은 언제까지죠?아니면, 사실, 또 다른 것이 있을까?라트비아 라트가 사라지는 걸 보니 유감이야!Martinevans123 (대화) 17:32, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.주요 금융 및 경제 뉴스, 우리가 자주 다루지 않는 뉴스.그래, 작은 나라지만 그렇다고 해서 이야기가 무효가 되는 건 아닌 것 같아.Modest Genius^talk 17:34, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
  • 오, 하지만 국기 이미지 Modest Genius 18:17, 2013년 12월 31일(UTC)은 사용하지 마십시오.
• 지금까지 반대파에 의해 설득되지 않은 지원.유로존은 꽤 독특한 국제 경제 실험이며, 세계적으로 학술적, 정치적 관심이 크다.유로존을 뒤흔든 경제위기를 비중 있게 다루긴 했지만, 최근 그 전선에서 상당히 잠잠해졌기 때문에, 우리 역시 유로존의 주제들을 지나치게 자극하고 있다고는 생각하지 않는다.나는 다른 나라가 아무리 작아도 국가 통화를 포기하고 실험에 참여하는 것은 백과사전 표준에 관한 작은 뉴스라는 것에 전적으로 반대한다. --hydrox (대화) 18:26, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

겨우 17살?17개 주권국가가 동의하도록 한 유로 위기 이면의 문제의 일부가 아니었을까?17명의 선수들이 경기장에 있는 축구팀을 상상해보라.Sca (대화) 18:59, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

아니면 75개 밖에 없는 체스 세트를 상상해보시겠습니까?Martinevans123 (토크) 19:06, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 지지 이것이 오랫동안 계획되어 온 것은 전적으로 무관하다.이것은 "In The News(그 누구도 예상하지 못한 뉴스)"가 아니라 "In The News" 입니다.우리는 오랫동안 계획되어온 비입법 국가의 선거를 정기적으로 (너무 자주) 시행하고 있는데, 사실 우리는 ITN/R의 결과로 그렇게 한다.유로존 확대가 눈에 띈다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 31일 19:15 (UTC)
  • 코멘트, 뉴스 항목에 대한 지원은 명확하고 명확하지만, 어떤 기사가 적절히 업데이트되었는지 누군가가 설명해 주시겠습니까?건배.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 주요 금융 뉴스를 지원하라, 통화의 변경은 꽤 큰 일이고 가장 확실하게 뉴스거리가 된다.그 나라의 작은 면적이 내게는 뉴스거리가 되지 않는다.스노우볼프 19:20, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• TRM 331dot (토크) 19:20, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 이것을 지지하는 것은 큰 뉴스는 아니지만, 백과사전적이고 독자들에게 흥미가 있을 것이며, 뉴스가 느리다는 것을 감안할 때 ITN에서 다른 이야기들을 쏟아내지는 않을 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:50, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 그래서 라트비아는 어떤 작은 나라인가?환율변동은 드물고 매우 뉴스 가치가 있다. --երևաիի 21 21 21:13, 2013년 12월 31일(UTC)
• 업데이트? 어떤 종류의 업데이트가 가능할지는 잘 모르겠어.폭동이 일어나지 않는 한 실제 소식은 거의 없을 것이다.은행들은 1일에 문을 여는가?댓글 좀 달아주시겠습니까?μΔείςς (talk) 21:32, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

이제 부엌에서 나갈 시간인가 봐.라임슈구 자우노 가두!Sca (대화) 22:36, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

에스네바루 스타브트 실투마, 바이 누!Martinevans123 (대화) 22:42, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

하! (빙에게 다행이다.)Sca (토크) 01:30, 2014년 1월 1일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.이것은 유로존에 대한 약간의 인구 증가일 수도 있지만 라트비아에게는 엄청난 소식이다.업데이트의 경우, 많은 기사에 대한 업데이트가 필요할 것이다. 비록 대부분은 작을 것이지만, 기사에 대한 최신 정보는 제공될 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 02:08, 2014년 1월 1일 (UTC)
• 이거 정기적으로 게시되지 않아?납북(이유) 02:38, 2014년 1월 1일 (UTC)
• 지원 라트비아와 유로존 둘 다에 대한 중요성, 특히 최근 유로화의 고전을 감안할 때 더욱 그렇다.넬잭 (대화) 03:15, 2014년 1월 1일 (UTC)
• 포스팅.최소한의 업데이트는 있지만 지금은 어느 정도 입니다.아마도 아침에 더 많은 업데이트가 뒤따를 것이다. --Tone 03:40, 2014년 1월 1일(UTC)

12월 30일

---

[포스팅] 콩고 공격으로 47명 사망

명명자의 의견:오랜만에 첫 지명이라 착오가 있으면 용서하십시오.나는 이 소식을 일찍 접하고 최근에 이 기사를 만들었다.ITN 자리를 차지하기에 충분히 길다고 생각한다.누군가는 아마도 더 멋진 흐릿함을 떠올릴 수 있을 것이다. --Dumelow (대화) 21:29, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

• 영국에서는 하루 종일 약한 지지로 인해 많은 사망자가 발생했으며, 기사에는 약간의 정교함이 필요하지만, 그렇지 않으면 ITN에 적합한 재료가 필요했다.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 지원 사망자뿐만 아니라 수도의 통제권을 장악하려는 시도에 대해서도 중요하다.넬잭 (대화) 22:14, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 넬잭 한 명당 지원.331dot (대화) 22:21, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 사망자가 많은 드라마틱한 스토리를 지원하십시오.반군들은 보통 그 나라의 수도 지역에서 그렇게 활발하지 않다.이슬릴자 (토크) 22:44, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 게시물 (토크) 01:22, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

12월 29일

---

[폐쇄] 마이클 슈마허

RD: Wojciech Kilar

명명자의 의견:매우 장식되고 높이 평가되는 폴란드 피아니스트와 작곡가.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 그의 모든 상을 봐봐...분명히 중요한 영향을 끼치는 사람Taylor Trescott - + 16:07, 2013년 12월 29일(UTC)
• 지지하다.피아니스트, 숙녀의 초상화, 브람 스토커의 드라큘라 등 높이 평가받는 영화의 악보를 작곡한 유명한 영화 작곡가.에스프레소 중독자(토크) 2013년 12월 29일(UTC)
  • 그럴지도 모르지만, 그의 피아니스트와 드라큘라상 수상과 관련하여 아래('넓게 고려된'과 '매우 중요한' 요건을 충족하지 못한 것에 대한 나의 논평)를 보라; 나는 그의 '여인의 초상화'에 대한 어떤 상도 알지 못한다. 그래서 영화가 높이 평가된다고 가정하더라도, 그의 점수가 높게 평가되는 객관적 증거가 부족해 보인다.Tlhslobus (대화) 08:32, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 그의 분야에서 잘 알려져 있다.--BabbaQ (대화) 19:26, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 명목당 지원.— Kpalion^(talk) 21:31, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 반대: 그의 주장된 공신력은 크게 과장된 것으로 보인다.그는 겉보기에는 주로 영화음악을 찍는 등 음악 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 알려져 있지만, 최근 영화음악사를 다룬 BBC4 시리즈의 전편을 보고 있음에도 불구하고 나는 그에 대해 들어본 적이 없다.그는 예상대로 오랜 기간 동안 2차 수상자 명단을 갖고 있지만, 그는 오스카상, 오스카상 후보 지명, 바프타상 수상, 주요 영화제 수상, 1년 동안 수상하지 못할 만큼 불운한 사람들에 대한 보상적인 평생 공로상 등등이 없다.기사 자체는 우리에게 'Wojciech Kilar의 대부분의 작품은 비록...에도 불구하고 음악 대중들에 의해 발견되지 않은 채로 남아 있다.' Tlhslobus (토크) 08:52, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 에스프레소 중독자 세라V(토크)당 지원 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC) 10:33, 30
• 반대하라, 뉴스 매체의 관심사가 아니다.그의 상 중 하나는 BAFTA 페이지로 리디렉션되는 것이지만, 그러한 종류의 상은 그 페이지에 언급되지 않았다.또한 공산주의 국가 시스템에 의해 주어지는 어떤 상도 정치에 의해 더럽혀진 것으로 평가되어야 한다.납북(이유) 16:18, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 잘못된 주장.위의 그림과 같은 BBC 뿐만 아니라 <데일리 텔레그래프>, <로스앤젤레스 타임스>, <오스트레일리아>가 이 내용을 다루고 있다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 오, 그리고 나는 "공산주의 국가 시스템이 주는 어떤 상도 정치에 의해 더럽혀지는 것으로 간주되어야 한다"는 것을 놓쳤다. 왜냐하면 물론 정치의 결과로 서구의 상은 주어지지 않기 때문이다.말도 안 되는 소리.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
    • 그러나 정치는 제쳐두고, 폴란드 작곡가에게 수여하는 많은 폴란드 상이 WP의 '전반적으로 고려된' 요구사항의 매우 약한 증거라는 문제가 여전히 있다.RD가 충족되고 있다.가장 중요한 실제 및 비폴란드 수상 사례에 대해 사용자:납치가 옳고 실제로 더 많은 문제가 있다. 자세한 내용은 아래를 참조하십시오('전역적으로 고려됨' 및 '매우 중요함' 요건을 충족하지 못하는 것에 대한 의견 및 기사 품질 요구 사항을 충족하지 못하는 것에 대한 의견).Tlhslobus (대화) 08:40, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)
• 약한 지지.그의 분야에서 두드러진다.광범위한 언론 보도가 없는 것은 사실이지만, 내 의견으로는 충분하다.공산주의자인지 아닌지는 그 당시 합법적으로 인정된 국가의 정부에 의해 수여되었다; 이것은 정치 체제를 판단하기 위한 포럼이 아니다. 331 도트 (대화) 16:22, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 그의 상을 지지하는 것은 바르샤바 조약이나 시대에 국한되지 않는다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:04, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 사실이지만, 다른 실제 상과 청구된 상도 문제가 있다. 자세한 내용은 Tlhslobus(대화) 09:04, 2013년 12월 31일(UTC) 아래의 2가지 의견을 참조하십시오.
• 업데이트 필요 "동사 시제의 변경(예: "is" → "was") 또는 ITN 블럽에 명시된 것 이상의 관련 정보를 거의 또는 전혀 전달하지 않는 업데이트는 불충분하다." 그가 최근에 사망한 것으로 나열된 것을 볼 때, 그가 사망했다는 하나의 문장 통지는 충분한 업데이트가 아니다.μΔείςς (talk) 23:39, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• '전반적으로 고려됨' 및 '매우 중요함' 요건을 충족하지 못한 것에 대한 의견: (앞서 내가 이미 제시한 반대 이유에 대해 더 자세히 설명).관련 WP:그의 포함에 대한 RD 기준은 "고인은 그 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 간주되었다"로 되어 있다(또한 기사 품질 기준 - 다음 의견을 참조하라).나는 그가 이미 언급했듯이, 오스카상과 바프타스가 없고, BBC4의 영화음악사에 관한 시리즈에서 언급되지 않은, 그리고 그러한 문제들 중에서도 우리가 그를 '전폭적으로 간주'하고 '매우 중요한' 것으로 보아야 한다는 것을 예상해야 한다는 것이 이상하다고 생각한다.그는 오스카상 후보에 오르지 못한 몇 안 되는 사람들 중 한 명이었다. 비록 공정하게 프랑스 세자르와 바프타 후보에 오르지 못했다.그러나 사운드트랙의 세부사항을 살펴보면, 킬러가 2분 미만의 한 트랙을 작곡한 것으로 보고되고 있으며, 그 외 모든 것은 쇼팽에 의해 이루어진다는 것을 알 수 있다.피아니스트에 관한 우리 기사의 음악 부분에 언급된 베토벤과 바흐의 추가 작품도 있지만, 킬러의 작품은 언급되지 않는다.그러나 이것이 그에게 겉보기에 가장 권위 있어 보이는 상(세사르)을 안겨 주었고, 그의 지명을 지지하는 다른 사람들이 언급한 영화들 중의 하나로서, 그가 그의 분야에서 '매우 중요한' 인물이라는 것을 거의 암시하지 않지만, 내가 그에 대해 말한 다른 모든 것과 전적으로 일치하고, 그가 왜 그렇게 하지 않았는지를 설명하는 데는 상당한 도움이 될 것 같다.'오스카상 후보에 오르지 못했어'그리고 나서 우리는 드라큘라('아마도 그의 최대 성공작'과 그의 지명을 지지하는 다른 사람들이 언급한 다른 영화들 중 하나)에 대한 그의 실제 상과 주장되는 상을 받게 된다.이 영화는 다시 한번 4개의 후보작과 3개의 우승으로 오스카상에 올랐지만, 그는 후보에 오르지 못했다.그는 이 영화의 애스캡을 다른 작곡가/라이시스트/출판사 7명과 공유했다(여기 IMDB에서 자세히 설명함). 그가 자신의 분야에서 '매우 중요한' 인물이라는 것을 다시 한 번 시사하는 바가 거의 없다.우리는 두 번이나 드라큘라가 공포영화에서 그에게 최고 점수상을 주기도 했다고 들었다.이는 오히려 밑바닥을 긁어내는 것처럼 들렸으나, 그가 낙마한 후보일 뿐(여기 IMDB의 세부사항)이기 때문에 사실조차 아닌 것으로 밝혀졌다.WP에 대한 '전반적으로 고려된' 요구사항:RD는 아마도 우리가 그의 모든 폴란드 상들에 너무 많은 비중을 두지 말아야 한다는 것을 의미할 것이고, 또한 논쟁의 여지가 있는 것은 'Wojciech Kilar의 대부분의 작품이 음악 대중들에 의해 전반적으로 발견되지 않은 채로 남아 있다'는 기사의 인정에 상당한 비중을 두어야 한다는 것을 의미할 것이다(그에 대해 우리가 발견하는 다른 모든 것에 비추어 놀랄 것도 아니다).Tlhslobus (대화) 07:46, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 기사 품질 요구 사항을 충족하지 못하는 것에 대한 의견: (그리고 이전에 내가 이미 제공한 것 외에 반대해야 하는 추가적인 이유)본 기사는 여러 가지 심각한 문제를 안고 있어 WP의 기사 품질 요건을 충족하지 못하는 것 같다.RD. 예를 들어, 현재 그가 죽은 연계를 바탕으로 피아니스트의 영화 음악으로 앤서니 아스퀴스 상을 수상했다고 잘못 알려주고 있다.영어로 된 그의 공식 웹사이트에 대한 외부 링크를 포함하여 그러한 죽은 링크가 몇 개 있으며, 다른 링크는 대부분 폴란드어로 되어 있어 확인이 어렵다.그것은 또한 그에게 불특정 영화 (이것은 아마도 실제로 위에서 언급한 Anthony Asquith Award for the Pianistian)에 대한 바프타 지명을 주었고, 그것은 그의 가장 권위 있는 상인 세자르를 열거하지 못한다(이전 논평에서 언급된 것처럼 그는 사운드 트랙의 2분도 작곡하지 않은 것 같다).그리고 내 이전 논평에서 이미 언급되었듯이, 우리는 드라큘라가 실제로 실패한 후보였을 때, 공포영화에서 최고 점수상을 수상했다는 것을 두 번 들었다.글의 극히 일부분만 체크해 지금까지 얼마나 많은 오류를 찾아냈는지 볼 때, 나는 더 많은 오류가 있을지도 모른다고 의심스럽다.나는 그것들을 직접 고치려고 할 계획이 없다 - 이 문제에 대해 더 이상 일을 하고 싶지 않다는 것 외에, 나는 누군가가 '최근의 죽음'에 대해 그렇게 의심하게 만드는 데 도움이 될 수 있는 수정 작업을 하고 싶지 않다.Tlhslobus (대화) 07:46, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 당신이 메인 페이지에 두 단어를 넣지 않는 특별한 이유가 있는가?그냥 궁금해요.오스카상을 수상하는 것은 중요하지만 ITN에 입성하는 모든 것이 아니다.둘 중 어느 것도 특정 다큐멘터리에 나오는 것은 아니다.그 분야를 단순히 "음악"이라고 정의한다면, 그래, 아마도 그는 (우리가 올린 많은 다른 사람들과 함께) 가장 중요한 사람은 아닐 것이다. 하지만 그것을 폴란드 음악으로 정의한다면, 그는 분명히 중요하다.또한 고려해야 할 체계적 편견 문제도 있다.게시물 감사하지만, 계속 지지하고 있어. 331닷 (토크) 09:10, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 331도트, 너의 도움된 답변 고마워.당신의 질문에 답하기 위해, 나는 더 길고 더 상세한 두 단락을 썼다. 왜냐하면 나는 나의 더 짧고 덜 세부적인 단락에 대해 아무런 회답을 받지 못했기 때문이다.아무도 내가 제기하는 요점에 대답하지 않는다면 내가 틀렸다는 것을 알게 될 것이라고 기대할 수 없다.그러나 너는 지금 그들에게 대답하였으니, 다시 한 번 감사하여라.나에 의한 체계적 편견이 어느 정도 작용했는지 모르겠지만, 어쨌든 폴란드 음악에 관한 너의 요점을 받아들이듯이, 그것이 작용했는지는 더 이상 중요하지 않다.그래서 나는 하나 이상의 사람들이 기사 품질 문제를 다루기 위해 합리적인 시도를 해야 하지만 이제 반대 입장을 철회한다.하지만 나 말고 다른 누군가가 그 수정들을 해야 한다. 왜냐하면 내가 이미 그 문제에 대해 더 이상 일을 하고 싶지 않다고 말했기 때문이기도 하고, 만약 있다면, 내가 쓴 것에 의해 제안된 가장 쉽고 분명한 수정들 외에는 얼마나 많은 수정이 이루어져야 하는지 확신할 수 없기 때문이다.그러나 얼마나 많은 추가 점검을 해야 하는지와 같은 개방적인 일들은, 만약 있다면, 다른 사람들이 나보다 더 잘 판단할 수 있는 판단 전화들이다. (걱정하지 마십시오, 나는 당신과 "래블링 맨" 같은 사람들이 나보다 훨씬 더 잘 할 수 있다고 믿을 수 있다는 것을 경험으로 알고 있기 때문에, 품질에 대해 더 이상 이의를 제기하지 않을 겁니다.Tlhslobus (대화) 13:08, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 의견/사후 고려:나는 굳이 반대 의견을 다시 제기하지는 않을 것이다(논의할 수 있지만, 노력할 가치가 없다).그러나 기록상으로는, 그리고 가능한 미래의 참고로, 나는 지금 그의 '필드'가 '폴란드 음악'이라는 당신의 주장에 대한 나의 양보는, 한 사람이 지치고 한 사람이 소수일 때, 그리고 한 사람이 그 주장이 노력의 가치가 없다고 느낄 때, 흔히 저지르는 일종의 잘못된 양보를 한 것이라고 의심스럽다.그의 분야가 '폴란드 음악'으로 묘사된 곳은 어디에도 없다.그는 '폴란드 피아니스트 겸 작곡가'로 지명되었다.그의 전기 기사는 그를 '폴란드 고전 및 영화 음악 작곡가'로 묘사하고 있으며, '폴란드 음악 센터의 Kilar at the Polish Music Center'라는 외부 링크 외에는 기사에 '폴란드 음악'이라는 문구가 등장하지 않는다.내가 보기에 그의 '필드'가 논리적으로 뒷받침할 증거가 없는 '폴란드 음악'이라는 것을 받아들이는 것 역시 두 가지 중 하나를 내포하고 있는 것 같다.우리는 네브라스카 뮤직, 델라웨어 화학, 와이오밍 페인팅, 앨라배마 배구 등이 '필드'라는 것을 받아들이거나, 핀란드나 노르웨이에서 온 작곡가, 화학자, 화가 또는 배구 선수나 내 조국(아일랜드)이 '최근의 죽음'에 포함될 자격이 미국보다 약 100배 더 많다는 것을 인정한다.단지 인구 규모의 차이에 의해서만.그러나 이미 언급한 바와 같이, 나는 그 주장이 노력의 가치가 없다고 생각하므로, 나는 나의 반대 의견을 다시 제기하지는 않을 것이다.Tlhslobus (대화) 13:06, 2014년 1월 1일 (UTC)

• 와우, 그냥 와우.솔직히, 이것은 꽤 빨리 진부해지고 있고, 아마도 한 쌍의 에세이를 쓰는 대신에, 그 에세이가 묘사하는 우려를 해소하는 데 시간이 걸릴 수도 있었다.신경 쓰지 마.The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• <람블링맨> 그 시간을 그렇게 보낼 수 있었을지도 모르지만, 실제로 (기본적으로 다른 이유들 중에서 옳든 그르든, 그것은 내 발을 일부러 쏘는 것처럼 보였을 것 같았기 때문에) 지옥에서 눈덩이처럼 불어나는 기회는 결코 없었다. 누군가가 왜 내가 잘못 생각하고 있는지 보여주기 전에. 지금 331닷이 그것을 나에게 보여주고 있다.완료됨(위 참조).그리고 내가 직접 고치지 않은 것은 별로 중요하지 않다. 왜냐하면, 내게 항상 명백했듯이, 쉬운 것은 다른 사람에 의해 꽤 빨리 처리될 수 있고, 더 어려운 것은 어차피 내가 하지 않을 것이기 때문이다.그리고 틀림없이 어제 누군가가 나에게 대답을 했다면 모든 것을 피할 수 있었을 것이다. 하지만 아마 아무도 내가 발견한 품질 문제들 중 일부를 발견하지 못했을 것이다. 적어도 지금은 좋게 끝나는 문제일 것이다.하지만 네가 말했듯이, 신경 쓰지 마.Tlhslobus (대화) 13:08, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 그 기사에 대해 어떤 일도 하고 싶지 않다고 말했는데도 불구하고, 위와 같은 나에 대한 비판은 결국 나를 자극하여 무엇인가를 하게 했다.나는 이제 그것을 정리하는 데 하루의 일을 어리석게도 허비했다.논쟁의 여지가 있는 더 많은 것이 필요하지만, 다른 누군가가 할 수 있다.바라건대 나는 교훈을 얻었고 다시는 ITN 근처 어디에도 갈 만큼 어리석지 않을 것이다.정말로 내가 어떤 감각을 가졌다면, 나는 평생 위키백과에서 내 자신을 금지시키기 위해 무언가를 할 것이다. 내 바보 같은 마조히즘적 간헐적 중독을 영구적으로 치료할 수 있는 유일한 방법이기 때문이다.Tlhslobus (대화) 10:38, 2014년 1월 2일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 2013년 볼고그라드 역 폭파 사건

명명자의 의견: (많은 출처에 따르면: 또 다른 소치와 관련된 뉴스 실, 이번에는 모든 미소를 짓고 손을 흔드는 척 하지 않는다.)작은 스텁이 시작되었으니 게시하기 전에 확장해야 한다.중대한 테러 행위.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 명목당 지원.존 - (워너톡?) 2013년 12월 29일 10시 47분 (UTC)

• 논평 WP가 많은 것 같다.여기서 미디어에 의해 그리고 편집자에 의해 합성되고 있다.소치와는 뚜렷한 연관성이 없다.우리 기사에는 어떤 연관성도 언급되어 있지 않다.700km나 떨어져 있어!BBC 소식통은 "아직 폭발의 책임을 주장하는 단체는 없다"고 분명히 말한다.러시아는 주변 지역에 많은 문제를 가지고 있는데, 많은 문제들은 올림픽 개최지와 관련이 없다.하지만, 이것은 큰 사건이다.일부 사람들이 생각하는 것 말고 그냥 있는 그대로 보고하면 안 될까?HiLo48 (대화) 11:06, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
  • 소치는 흐림이나 기사에 언급되어 있지 않다.여러 가지 뉴스에서 언급하고 있기 때문에 내가 언급하고 있는 것이다.그 얼간이는 그것이 무엇인지를 보고하고 있다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.많은 사상자를 낸 테러리스트들의 공격은 특히 올림픽을 준비하는 나라에서 두드러진다.331dot (대화) 11:33, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.쏘치 올림픽 안보 상황에 대한 의문이 제기되면서 더욱 주목받는 중형 폭탄 공격.이젤릴자 (토크) 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• Support — A specific link to Sochi isn't needed for this to cast a pall over the upcoming Winter Olympics — this, in the context of Putin's amnesties being widely seen as PR for said Olympics. (PS: Reuters, AP say "at least 14" while BBC, NYT say 15.) [2] [3] [4] [5] Sca (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

이제 이것을 게시물로 표시해야 하지 않을까?Sca (대화) 16:31, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

PPS: Pic of Station 이용 가능.Sca (대화) 16:45, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

커먼즈에서의 폭발의 여파를 묘사한 일련의 이미지들이 있다. 카테고리:2013 볼고그라드 역 폭격을 참조하라. --Vejvanchický (토크/기여) 16:53, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

그 중 첫 번째 것이 가장 쓸모가 있어 보인다.Sca (대화) 16:57, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 내가 이걸 올렸었는데 편집이 엉망이 됐어.Jehchman 17:57, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• BBC는 16개의 "관계자가 말한다"로 업데이트한다. [6] Sca (대화) 18:01, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 업데이트. 12월 30일 트롤리버스 테러(10명 또는 15명 사망)도 포함시키기 위해 과감한 조치를 취했다.이슬릴자 (토크) 06:13, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

러시아 볼고그라드에서 두 차례의 자살 폭탄 테러가 발생해 31명이 숨졌다.이렇게요?피드백을 받으면 기꺼이 업데이트. --Tone 11:31, 2013년 12월 30일(UTC)

네, 하지만 적어도 31명은 될 겁니다...The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

아주 잘한다.사진 캡션을 수정하는 것이 마음에 드는지 확인하십시오. --Tone 12:34, 2013년 12월 30일(UTC)

좋아, 여분의 공간도 없앴어.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

폭파 장소의 최신 사진이 있어, 내 생각엔 더 나은 것 같아(하원에도 몇몇이 있다.브랜드마이스터^talk 12:44, 2013년 12월 30일(UTC)

그렇게 막연하지 않았으면 좋았을 텐데.사실 아무것도 안 보여.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

합의된 재알트.우리가 어제 본 사진.적어도 현재 사진은.철도가 확실하다.그러나 (Volgograd-1 철도역 사진)을 (철도역, 1차 폭격 장소, 사진)와 같은 것으로 바꿀 수 있을까?Sca (대화) 16:57, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

12월 28일

---

UFC 168

명명자의 의견:두 명의 여자 파이터가 "재기"하고 있었고, UFC의 유망주(크리스 웨이드먼)가 위대한 선수 중 한 명(앤더슨 실바)과 싸우고 있었기 때문에, 이것은 시작하기에 주목할 만한 싸움이었다.또한 이 싸움은 크리스 웨이드만이 앤더슨 실바의 다리를 부러뜨리면서 끝이 났고, 이는 실바의 선수 생활을 끝낼 가능성이 높다고 일부 소식통이 전했다.Andise1 (대화) 06:03, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 조건부 지원 나는 UFC나 MMA에 관해서는 그다지 많은 지식을 가지고 있지 않지만, 이것은 ITN에 진출하기에 충분히 주목할 만한 사건인 것 같다.롤, 왜 그들이 전 여자 "리매치"를 했는지 궁금해… --솜차이 선 (토크) 10:33, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 코멘트 이 스포츠는 다른 스포츠들과 마찬가지로 여러 가지 체급을 가지고 있기 때문에, 나는 이 특정한 체급을 선택할 이유가 없다고 본다.AFAIK, 복싱대회 같은 것도 안 올린다.브랜드마이스터^talk 13:46, 2013년 12월 29일(UTC)
• 사소한 반대.이것은 확실히 어려운 것이다.실바(역대 최고는 아닐지라도)가 KO를 통해 패한 것을 생각하면 나는 그들이 여름에 치른 첫 경기를 응원하는 데 어려움이 없었을 것이다.실바는 UFC 역사상 가장 긴 타이틀 방어율과 승리가 줄을 이었기 때문에 이번 대회는 꽤 주목할 만했다.이번 재시합은 웨이드먼이 실바를 잠들게 했다는 것을 사람들이 믿지 못했기 때문에 일어났지만, 첫 번째 싸움인 IMO만큼 눈에 띄지 않았다.UFC에서는 타이틀 싸움이 많이 일어나고 있고, 다 올려서는 안 된다고 생각한다.아마도 조르주 세인트. 피에르는 MMA를 마치고 돌아와서는 ITN에 확실히 성공할 수 있는 것을 잃는다.컴퓨터JA (☎) 17:24, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 반대 - 이것은 스포츠도 아니고 PPV 프로그래밍이다.UFC 168에 대해서는 UFC 1-167보다 ITN에 더 적합하게 만드는 것이 없다고 보는데, 그 중 어느 것도 특집으로 다루지 않았다. --Bongwarrior (토크) 23:01, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 이것은 스포츠인지 아닌지를 토론하기 위한 포럼이 아니다; 단지 이것을 ITN에 게시하는 것의 장점을 토론하기 위해서일 뿐이다.개인적으로 나는 동의하는 경향이 있지만 많은 사람들은 동의하지 않을 것이다. 331dot (대화) 23:20, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)
• 실제 스포츠인 종합격투기(Mixed Martial Arts)를 소재로 한 PPV 프로그래밍.하지만 무슨 말인지 알겠어.세계복싱협회와 같은 국제기구를 갖기에는 아직 MMA가 너무 크지는 않지만, 나는 그것이 이것을 반대하는 이유가 되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다.컴퓨터JA (☎) 23:24, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

• 지원, 구글 뉴스 결과 13만 2천 건그게 뉴스가 아니라면 뭐가 뭔지 모르겠어.확실히 여자 핸드볼(9,230)이나 럭비 리그 월드컵(4,340)보다 훨씬 많다. –HTD 08:07, 2013년 12월 30일(UTC)
  • 그리고 우리가 구글 뉴스 결과의 숫자에 근거한 콘텐츠를 올리면...솜차이 선 (토크) 11:46, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
    • 우리는 실제로 적은 수의 구글 뉴스 결과를 가지고 콘텐츠를 올린다.가십거리가 아닌 주요 뉴스에 50:50분.–HTD 17:44, 2013년 12월 30일(UTC)
• 서포트는 다양한 1면을 만들었고, 팬들이 하나의 작은 공연장이 아닌 PPV로 시청하는 것은 전혀 무관하다.μΔείςς (talk) 21:51, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 많은 편집자들이 그렇게 혐오스럽다고 생각하는 UFC가 WWE와 무엇이 다른지 논평하시오.이것이 진정한 경연대회인가 아니면 어느 정도 무대인가?몇몇 빠른 구글 검색은 그것이 단지 약간의 쇼케이스일 뿐이라는 것을 암시하는 것처럼 보인다.The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

  UFC는 준비되지 않았다.UFC에서, 출혈과 피를 유발하는 합법적인 펀치와 킥이 있다.또한 앤더슨 실바의 다리가 실제로 부러졌다는 사실(왜 그들이 누군가 다리를 부러뜨리는 것을 스테이지 하겠는가?)은 UFC가 무대화되지 않았음을 확인시켜 준다.UFC는 세계 최대의 종합격투기 기업이기도 하다.Andise1 (대화) 23:41, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

  알았어, 고마워.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 지원 그 결과는 중요했고, MMA는 아무데도 가지 않는다. 우리는 이것이 이제 주요 스포츠 행사라는 사실을 다루는 것이 좋겠다. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:45, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

• ITN에서 무술을 볼 수 있도록 지원하십시오.그렇게 되면 달리 볼 수 없는 흥미로운 기사들에 갈고리가 생길 것이다. --Torai (토크) 23:45, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.만약 그것이 1면에 오른다면, 나는 실바의 다리 부러짐이 블럽에 포함되어야 한다고 생각한다.취재량이 많은 이유 중 하나는 'MMA 역대 최고의 파이터'가 입은 소름끼치는 부상 때문이었다.컴퓨터JA (☎) 23:49, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

alt blurb에 추가했다. --Toai (토크) 10:09, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

나는 (추천자가 아닌) 스포츠를 활동 분야로 주기 위해 짧은 블럽을 제안했다.게시하기 전에 시작했으므로 사용하지 않기로 선택해도 걱정하지 마십시오. --Torai (토크) 23:55, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

(당신이 찾고 있는 다리 부러짐이 아닌 건 확실해...!The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 일부 기사에 대한 논평은 여전히 미래 시제로 쓰여 있다.또한 기사의 제목이 주인공이 암시하는 것처럼 이탤릭체로 되어 있거나, 기사의 제목이 UFC 168: Weidman vs. 이전 UFC와 같이 실바 2가?페이지 중간중간에는 대담한 텍스트가 널려 있는 것 같은데, 이것은 불필요해 보인다.만약 우리가 이 문제들을 해결할 수 있다면, 나는 지원을 고려할 것이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 31일 (UTC)

• 준비되지 않음 - 나는 포스팅을 고려하겠지만, 그 기사는 올릴 수 있는 상태가 아니다.가장 눈에 띄는 것은 기사 본문에 싸움에 대한 설명이 전혀 없다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 17:06, 2014년 1월 3일 (UTC)

• 반대한다. 세계적으로나 언론의 관심이 거의 없는 경미한 스포츠는 주로 적절한 스포츠 경기보다는 TV 이벤트로 운영된다.이것은 심지어 그 스포츠에서 가장 큰 이벤트도 아니다 - 매년 6개의 UFC 경기가 있고, 이번 대회 역시 헤비급 타이틀 싸움을 특징으로 하지 않았다.권투나 레슬링 종목은 일일이 올리지도 않고, MMA에도 올리면 안 된다. Modest Genius 18:14, 2014년 1월 3일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 신형 소유즈 로켓

노미네이터의 논평: 새로운 로켓의 처녀 비행, 그것은 ITNR이다.기사는 기본 업데이트가 있었고 지금 더 추가하겠다. --W. D. Graham 18:24, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.나는 이것이 ITNR과 관련이 없다고 생각한다. 메이든이 새로운 로켓의 "유형"을 발사하는 것은 ITNR이다.이 경우 소유즈가 유형인 것 같고 소유즈-2-1v는 개인 '모델'이다, 그게 맞는 말이라면 말이다.구립 (대화) 19:13, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

  우리는 미국의 로켓(미노타우르스 V)을 포함했는데, 이것은 이전 로켓(상단과는 다른)과는 훨씬 덜 의미 있는 것이었다.소유즈-2-1v는 본질적으로 이름뿐인 소유즈다.어쨌든 거의 모든 신형 로켓이 기존 로켓의 파생상품이기 때문에 ITNR 진입 정신에 부합한다. --W. D. Graham 19:38, 2013년 12월 28일(UTC)

기사에 따르면 "부스터 로켓이 생략된 소유즈-2.1b로 구성되며, 코어 무대는 원래 N1 프로그램을 위해 제작된 NK-33 엔진과 다시 결합되었다"고 한다.구립 (대화) 20:01, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

아마도 그것은 잘못 쓰여지고 지나치게 단순화되었을 것이다 - 그래서 나는 그것을 바꿀 것이다 - 그러나 그 문장은 3단계를 제외한 2-1b의 거의 모든 부분을 교체하는 것을 기술하고 있다(러시아 스테이지 지정이 부스터를 1단계로 간주하기 때문에 2-1v로 2단계가 된다). --W. D. Graham 21:03, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

• 설명/질문:흐릿하지도 기사도 나 같은 평신도에게는 이것이 중요한지 아닌지를 이해하도록 허락하지 않는데, 기본적으로 왜 이 로켓이 이전 로켓보다 훨씬 나은지에 대한 간단한 설명이 없기 때문이다(분명히 어떤 면에서는 전임 로켓에 대한 최소한 사소한 개선일 테지만, 그런 단순한 m.inor 또는 개선은 특별히 뉴스 가치가 있는 것처럼 보이지 않는다.정말 큰 개선이고, 블럽이 그렇게 말하고, 기사가 이 점을 분명히 설명해 준다면 (그때까지 흥미를 잃지 않았다면) 지원을 고려해 볼 수도 있을 것이다.Tlhslobus (대화) 10:47, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 그것은 WP의 기준을 충족하면 (업데이트되는 한) ITN의 자격을 얻는다.ITN/R. 만약 당신이 이것에 동의하지 않는다면, 당신은 당신의 주장을 그곳으로 가져가야 한다.The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

제안은 고맙지만 걱정하지 마, 나는 이 항목에 반대하거나 ITN/R 기준에 반대할 계획이 없어.나는 그들의 말에 별로 동의하지는 않지만 반반으로 반대하는 모든 것에 대해 다툴 시간이 없다. 특히 내가 이 문제에 대해 신경 쓰지 않고 내가 이길 가능성이 없다고 생각할 때 말이다(그리고 알다시피, 나는 오늘 이미 한 번 당황했다).그러나 그 항목은 '지원'이 부족한 것 같았고 나는 내가 스스로 '지원'을 주는 것을 고려하는 데 필요한 해결책, 적어도 내 어리석은 생각으로는 기사와 모호함을 개선할 수 있는 해결책, 그리고 그 없이는 내가 그 사건을 중요한 것으로 보아야 하는지 아닌지에 대한 이해가 안 된다고 말했을 뿐이다(대부분 읽었던 것처럼).위키백과의 사용자들 나는 위키백과나 다른 그룹의 규칙서에 쓰여진 것 때문에 중요한 것에 대한 내 자신의 판단을 버릴 의무는 없다고 생각한다.하지만 나는 그 일에 반대하는 것이 아니고, 그리고 당신이 그것을 고치면 그것이 당신의 지지를 얻을 것이기 때문에, 나는 당신이 그것을 만족스럽게 고치면 톤이 그것을 게시하지 못할 이유가 없다고 본다, 다른 반대자가 나타나지 않는 한.Tlhslobus (대화) 14:33, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

• 기꺼이 게시할 의향이 있지만 더 많은 피드백을 받고 싶다.기사의 상태가 양호하고 새로운 로켓은 상당한 발전이다. --Tone 12:41, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 내가 두 손을 다시 잡으면(현재 아기를 안고), 기사를 정리하고, 그리고 나서 지원을 해주는 코멘트가 너무 길지 않을 것이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 비록 우리가 죽은 ref 3에 대한 대체품을 찾을 수 있다면 더할 나위 없이 좋겠지만, archive.org에 어떤 기록물도 없다.The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
  • 나는 그것을 교체했다.갈 준비 완료.The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 지지 - 조항이 적절하며 아마도 더 성장할 것이다.국제적인 관심은 분명해 보이며, 나는 현 시점에서 포스팅을 지지한다.Jusdafax 23:27, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)
• 게시됨 - 러시아도 몇 가지 좋은 소식이 필요할 수 있다.Jehchman 23:32, 2013년 12월 30일 (UTC)

12월 27일

---

모하맛 차타

화요일 (토크) 22:25, 2013년 12월 27일 (UTC)

• 또한 전 미국 친선 대사.추가적인 중요성이 나타날 때까지 지원을 보류하십시오.μΔείςς (talk) 22:39, 2013년 12월 27일 (UTC)
• 지지 - 고위 각료들이 비겁한 폭격으로 사망함 - 2013년 12월 27일 (UTC) 22:46, BabbaQ (대화)
• 아직 우리는 이것에 대해 확실히 더 많은 정보가 필요하다.누가 이런 짓을 했는지, 실제로 대상이 누구인지는 밝혀지지 않았다.(다른 5명이 숨지고 71명이 다쳤다.)그 원천은 갈고 닦을 도끼를 가진 많은 사람들이 그들의 정치적 순간을 태양에서 갖도록 내버려두지만, 그것은 정말로 별로 도움이 되지 않는다.그리고 나는 이 남자가 미국 우호 관계라고 주장하는 것이 어떤 것과 관련이 있는지 알 수가 없다.HiLo48 (대화) 23:05, 2013년 12월 27일 (UTC)

이것은 정말 명백하다.그가 미국 대사라는 것은 유명무실하다는 것을 말해주고, 그의 미국 친화력은 암살을 설명할 수 있는 동기를 제시하며, 이것은 게시물을 정당화하는 데 도움이 될 것이다.하지만, 만약 그가 헤로인 1그램에 대한 빚을 졌기 때문에 해고된다면, 그것은 포스팅에 대한 부담을 경감시킬 것이다.아니면 미국의 어떤 친구라도 살인을 저지를 자격이 있다는 것이 너의 요점인가?μΔείςς (talk) 04:57, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

그가 목표물이었는지도 모른다.그가 그랬다고 해도, 당신의 논리는 WP의 집단이다.합성과 WP: 독창적인 연구, 그리고 명백히 받아들일 수 없는 연구.HiLo48 (대화) 06:05, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

넌 그의 우정이 어떤 것과도 무슨 상관이 있는지 볼 수 없다고 말했고 내가 너에게 말했다.정보는 출처로부터 나온 것이고, 합성은 기본적으로 우리가 여기서 하는 것으로, 우리에게 자명한 기준으로 제공되지 않는 여러 요인에 근거하여 목록을 올릴 것인가 말 것인가에 대한 의견의 일치를 보게 된다.μΔείςς (talk) 16:09, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

• 기사 확대 보류 중 지원 - HiLo48의 우려를 고려한 후, 그러나 폭격에 관한 CBS 뉴스 기사를 읽은 나는 그 대상이 시리아의 비평가인 차타일 가능성이 매우 높았고, 살인은 정치적이었다고 결론지었다.그의 글은 현재 작업 중이고 개선되고 있지만 이 게시물에는 여전히 빈약하다.Jusdafax 00:46, 2013년 12월 28일(UTC)
• 폭파 기사와 연계하여 지원하라.Jon - (Wanna talk?) 03:08, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)
• 업데이트 내용이 모호한 내용 이상이면 만족스럽지 못하다는 것을 나타내는 필요한 목록을 업데이트하십시오.우리는 이상적으로 내가 지지할 수 있는 폭격 자체에 대한 3개 단락의 기사가 필요하며, 아니면 적어도 다른 표적 기사에 대한 폭격에 관한 단락이 필요하다. 그리고 만약 그것만 있다면 나는 반대한다.μΔείςς (talk) 03:21, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)
• 지원, 확장된 경우 --երաիիի 05 05:00, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)
• 지원, 이벤트가 눈에 띄고 신뢰할 수 있는 출처로 기사를 업데이트하고 확장했다.에게미 (대화) 08:00, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

업데이트 요건은 새로운 기사에 대한 세 단락인데, 여기의 목표 기사는 지금 그것보다 상당히 부족하다.μΔείςς (talk) 16:11, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)

• 연계된 것에 반대하는 것은 약하다.차타 자신을 위한 RD를 생각해봐.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 2013년 12월 28일 (UTC)
• 새로운 ITN 아이템이 없는 지 이틀이 지났고, 그 아이템은 업데이트였습니다.납북(이유) 00:23, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

만약 우리가 폭파 기사에 세 단락의 작은 단락을 얻을 수 없다면, 그 주제가 공신력 요건을 충족시킬 것 같지 않다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:37, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

"폭격 기사"라는 말이 현재 ITN을 향하고 있는 것을 의미한다면, 다시 생각해 봐야 할 때일 것이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

파루크 셰이크 RD

노미네이터의 논평: 인디언 시네마에서 중요한 배우.전국 영화상 수상자.모든 주요 인도 신문과 텔레비전 뉴스 채널의 주요 보도.The OriginalSoni (토크) 12:14, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

주목할 만한 것 같지만, 기사는 영화에서부터 TV 스타에 이르는 호를 보여주는데, 오직 한 개의 상만이 – 업데이트에서 그의 중요성에 대한 어떤 종류의 언급이 유용할 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:35, 2013년 12월 29일 (UTC)

12월 26일

---

12월 25일

---

12월 24일

---

[포스팅] 남수단 혹(again)

남수단에서의 전투가 진행되는 동안, 약 75구의 시신을 담은 집단 무덤이 발견된다.

약 75구의 시체가 발견된 대규모 무덤.BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

지지할 수 있다.제안할 게 있어?μΔείςς (talk) 15:34, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

위를 흐릿하게 하다.The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 반대하지 않는 한 나는 이것을 노골적으로 지지하지 않을 것이다. 왜냐하면 현재 아이템은 바닥에서 이틀 떨어져 있고, 그 사이에 더, 더 나쁜 소식을 듣게 될지도 모르기 때문이다.아마도 블럽을 업데이트하고 위에 올려놓는 대신 제자리에 두는 것이 좋을까?남수단 소요사태에 끈적거리는 것도 좋을 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:59, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.모두 세 개의 무덤이 있는 것으로 보인다.우리는 또한 살바 키어가 그의 군대가 보르의 핵심 마을을 탈환했다고 주장하고 있다.[7] 반란군이 처음 포획했을 때 그 이야기를 올렸으니, 불행한 집단 무덤 발견과 함께 지금 올리는 것도 일리가 있다.나는 이 선들을 따라 흐릿하게 보이는 것이 효과가 있을 것이라고 생각한다: 집단 무덤에서 수십 구의 시신이 발견된 후, 남수단군은 보르의 핵심 마을인 보르를 탈환할 것을 발표한다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 18:38, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 이것은 약 1주일 후에 이 직접 주제에 대한 세 번째 게시물/게시판이 될 것이다.나는 이것을 고려해 볼 때 우리가 그 주제에 대해 끈적거릴 것을 제안한다.끈적끈적한 게시물은 뉴스에 남아 있는 주제를 위해 고안된 것이기 때문에 우리는 작은 발전도 마다하지 않아도 된다.이것은 적용되는 것 같다. --Jayron32 19:11, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

흐지부지한 것에 반대하지만, 손을 바꾸는 마을을 지지한다. 아니면 그냥 기다려라.리하스 (대화) 19:29, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

아이러니하네.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC) 19:42, (UTC)

여기에 쌓이는 또 다른 유용한 댓글(대화) 2013년 12월 24일 19:52, 12월 24일(UTC)

디토, 크리스마스 리하스 축하해이것이 영어 위키백과라는 것을 기억하도록 노력해라.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 지지 범프(모하메드 CJ의 흐림)는 끈적끈적한 스틱이 거의 모든 사람들이 어느 정도 친숙해질 문제를 걱정할 때 가장 잘 작동한다고 반대한다.시리아 내전이 그 예다.-누군가 그것에 대한 모든 뉴스를 놓치기는 어려울 것이다.그러나, 상당수의 독자들이 이 상황에 대해 듣지 못했을 수도 있다면, 어느 정도 설명을 제공하는 모호한 표현이 더 바람직하다.나는 현재 남수단의 상황이 후자의 범주에 속한다고 생각한다.나는 세 개의 게시물/범벅이 독자들에게 그 문제를 설명하는데 있어서 더 좋을 때, 특히 우리가 보통 뉴스 시간이 느릴 때라는 것을 줄 때 끈적거림을 필요로 한다는 것을 확신하지 못한다.

P.S. 메리 크리스마스 여러분! (지금 이곳 뉴질랜드에서는 크리스마스 아침이다.)넬잭(대화) 19:45, 2013년 12월 24일(UTC)

• "dozens"는 적절하지 않다는 점에 유의하십시오.검사관들이 "75년 정도"라고 말하니까 그렇게 해야 해.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

둘 다 이웃이고 불안정이 지속되고 있기 때문에 아마도 이것을 CAR과 비교하는 코멘트일 것이다.리하스 (대화) 19:52, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.그 기사는 매우 빠르게 진화하는 사건들에 뒤떨어져 있다.지상의 유엔 고위 관리들 중 한 명은 사망자가 수천 명에 이르며 실향민이 수십만 명에 이른다고 말하고 있다. (BBC) 원조 전문가들은 90년대 초반 르완다와 비교하기 시작했다. - 반얀트리 19:54, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
  • 아주 그렇다.끈적끈적한 영역처럼 들리네The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

이것이 내가 반대하지 않는 투표로 위에서 암시하고 있던 것이다.75구의 시체가 발견되었다고 해서 그들이 그냥 죽었거나, 그것이 전부라고는 할 수 없다.이걸 75번으로 하면 2000번으로 다시 한 번 상단으로 옮길까?업데이트는 괜찮은 해결책인 것 같아. 나중에 부딪히든지 끈적거리든지 뭐든 간에 물건이 금방이라도 떨어질 것 같아.μΔείςς (talk) 20:45, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 지원: 한 번의 행동으로 75명이 사망하는 것은 대수롭지 않은 일이 아니다.그러나 현재 형태의 흐릿한 표현은 그다지 좋아하지 않는다.여단 피론 (대화) 20:55, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 지금 막 유엔 평화유지군 1만2500명 증원을 발표한다.이 시나리오가 며칠에 한 번씩 ITN임을 감안하면 스티커만이 유일한 해답인 것 같다.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

새로운 안보리의 결과를 추가하기 위한 논평이 주목할 것이다.그걸 제안하러 왔어.

그리고 주택에 대한 언급은 기사에 실려 있지만, 출처에서는 확증은 없으며 이것은 "거의" 인물이라고 명시적으로 말하고 있다.지금까지, 500명이 보편적으로 재조합된 것 같다.리하스 (대화) 21:54, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

당신의 주장에 대한 출처?The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

뭘 위해서?출처는 내 것이 아니다./

출처가 이렇게 말한 것으로 인용되는 것은 검증가능성이 없다는 노골적인 언급도 있다.나는 어떠한 주장도 하지 않았다. 나는 단지 사실의 출처를 분석했을 뿐이다.

절대 확실성이 있고 의심할 여지 없이 모든 출처가 최소한 500명의 사망에 동의한다는 것이다.리하스 (대화) 00:09, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

• 지원 - 확실한 뉴스거리 제공 - BabbaQ(대화) 18:53, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

논평: 모호한 제안내전에 대한 가장 큰 두려움, 유엔 안보리는 남수단에 더 많은 UNMISS 병사들을 보내는 것에 동의한다. 리하스 (대화)20:31, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

리하스(Lihaas)가 잘 퍼지는 것 같군.--BabbaQ(토크) 20:41, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

• 어떤 블러브를 선택하든 간에, 나는 이것이 판에서 떨어지지 않도록 해야 한다고 생각한다.끈적끈적한 것이 가장 좋을 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:51, 2013년 12월 26일 (UTC)

리하스는 이것을 준비했고, 나는 그의 형식을 고쳤다.나는 그의 애매모호한 표현을 지지한다. 유엔 안보리는 남수단에 더 많은 UNMISS 병사들을 보내는 것에 동의한다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:05, 2013년 12월 26일 (UTC)

• 게시. 스펜서^T♦C 06:34, 2013년 12월 27일(UTC)

[게시] 앨런 튜링은 사후에 사면되었다.

명명자의 의견:현대 컴퓨터 과학의 창시자이자 튜링 기계의 이름이다.다른 남자와 바람을 피웠다는 이유로 심한 우유부단죄로 유죄판결을 받았고, 그 후 곧 자살했다.그의 처우는 이미 2009년 당시 고든 브라운 총리로부터 사과받았지만, 공식 사후의 왕실 사면은 2013년 12월 24일 오늘에야 허가됐다.나는 두 개의 모호한 점을 추가했는데, 그 중 후자는 그가 사면된 "범죄"를 명시적으로 언급하고 있다. --hydrox (대화) 23:26, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 지지 나는 튜링의 명성과 그곳의 캠페인을 고려할 때 많은 언론 보도와 독자들의 관심이 있을 것이라고 확신한다.튜링이 당시와 마찬가지로 법에 따라 적절하게 범죄로 유죄판결을 받은 것을 근거로, 작년에 같은 정부가 사면을 거부했다는 점을 고려하면 흥미롭다.넬잭(대화) 23:53, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC)

실제로, 그리고 기사에서 지적한 바와 같이, 그럼에도 불구하고 사면을 허가하려는 운동이 그 이후로 계속되어 왔으며, 그것은 이제 결실을 맺게 된 것 같다.사면을 위한 법안은 상원에서 LibDem 구명동료에 의해 발의되었는데, 이 또한 다소 특이한 것으로 알고 있다. --hydrox (대화) 00:27, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

또한, 나는 어떤 사람이 확실히 저지른 범죄와 관련하여 왕실 사면을 한 최근의 전례가 있는지 궁금하다.ITN 상태와는 별 상관이 없지만, 모든 것이 좀 무의미하다.구립(토크) 01:57, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 여왕에 대한 언급은 지지하되 반대하라. 여왕은 아마도 그가 누구인지 모를 것이다.그가 왕실 사면을 받았다고 치자.또한 이타적인 행동은 마치 "동성애를 위한 정신"이라고 불리는 특별한 종류의 로열 프리로게티가 있는 것처럼 들리게 한다.구립(토크) 00:01, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

왜 여왕은 그가 누구인지 몰라야 하는가? (진정한 질문)HiLo48 (대화) 00:12, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

퀸이 블럽에서 떨어졌어, 네 말이 맞아. --hydrox (대화) 00:29, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• "컴퓨터 과학의 아버지인 앨런 튜링은 심각한 우유부단함에 대한 유죄 판결에 대해 사후 왕실 사면을 받는다"고 지지하고 제안한다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 00:08, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

이것을 지지하고, 이타적인 공간에 베끼는 것을 자유자재로 하고 있다.구립(토크) 00:23, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

지명자로서 나는 이 블럽을 전적으로 지지하고 토론을 용이하게 하기 위해 블럽 지명자로 설정한다. --hydrox (토크) 00:29, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 어떤 근거로 여왕이 튜링의 정체를 모르는 니트위트라고 추측하는 겁니까?만약 사면이 여전히 공식적으로 여왕의 특권이라면 그녀는 그것을 부여하는 것으로 언급되어야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:13, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 그녀가 알고 있든 모르든 왕실의 사면은 자동적으로 군주에 의해 허가되기 때문에 그녀를 이름 짓는 것은 불필요한 것이라고 나는 생각한다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 00:18, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

그렇다, 제안된 블럽이 주는 오해의 소지가 있는 인상은 그녀가 그 문제에 대해 실질적인 발언권을 가지고 있다는 것이다.구립(토크) 00:23, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 지원 나는 전쟁 노력에 대한 그의 기여가 모호해지는 것을 보고 싶다.HiLo48 (대화) 00:14, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.역사적 인물에 대한 주목할 만한 사면.여왕은 사면을 허락하는 사람으로 모호하게 언급되어야 한다; 우리는 여왕이 모를 정원 품종 범죄자에 대해 말하는 것이 아니다.그녀가 그를 몰랐다고 해도 그에 대한 정보나 다른 형태의 충고를 여전히 받았을 것이다.331dot (토크) 00:24, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

"왕실 사면"은 이미 군주에 의해 허가되었음을 암시하고 있다. --hydrox (대화) 00:32, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

예, 제 생각에 이전 버전IP의 공식화는 서툴렀지만, 왕실의 자비 특권과 연관된 "로열"이라고 말하는 것은 여왕의 공식적인 개입을 나타내는 것으로 충분해 보인다.정치 문제는 실제로 입헌군주제에서 군주가 결정하는 것이 아니다.정부는 그저 그녀에게 서류를 주고 정중하게 그에게 서명해 달라고 부탁하거나, 아니면 그런 것(세부적인 것에 대해 나에게 잔소리를 하지 마라)을 한다.또한 일반적으로 총리를 공식적으로 임명하고, 법률을 발효시키는 것이 군주다(Royal Assent는 1708년 이후 영국에서 거부되지 않았다), 그리고 우리가 ITN에서 군주들을 거의 신뢰하지 않는 것들이다.우리는 단지 누군가가 선거에서 이겼고, 정부를 구성했고, 법을 통과시켰고, 기타 등등.프라임헌터 (대화) 00:42, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

내 폼은 훌륭했다.하지만, 그건 제쳐두고, 그래.구립(토크) 00:46, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 나는 가장 높은 수준의 사후 인정을 올린 기억이 없다. 동성애를 위한 왕실의 사면이 그 술집 아래에서는 무시되고 있는 것 같다.튜링의 생전에 그런 일이 일어났다면 아마 그럴 겁니다, 하지만 지금은...브랜드마이스터^talk 01:35, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

적어도 튜링이 어떤 식으로든 메인 페이지에 오르는 것은 이번이 여덟 번째가 될 것이다.나는 반대하지 않지만, 나는 우리가 이것을 하기 위해 트랩을 하는 것에 대해 조금 덜 참을 수 있다고 생각한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:52, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 그 선언과 직접적인 연관성이 있는가?나는 적대적인 POV로 걸러지지 않는 것을 읽고 싶다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:44, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

공천함에는 HM의 영장이 적혀 있다.그게 네가 원하는 거 아니야?프라임헌터 (토크) 01:53, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

응, 고마워.μΔείςς (talk) 03:37, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

나도 그걸 봤지만, 그는 예를 들어 직접적인 연계를 요청했어.버킹엄 궁전.기념비적으로무능력 (토크) 01:57, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

그것은 정부나 왕실 사이트가 아니라 데일리 텔레그래프의 공식 웹사이트에 [8]에 2페이지를 표시한다.프라임헌터 (토크) 02:44, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 코멘트 나는 이것이 어떤 것에도 실질적인 영향을 미치지 않으며, 순전히 상징적인 제스처라는 단순한 근거로 반대했을 것이다.하지만, 포스팅에 대한 욕구가 분명히 있는데, 적어도 이 "컴퓨터 과학의 아버지"를 좀 더 모호하게 만들 수는 없을까?그것은 대중적인 과학 보도에서 소리를 지르고 어떤 이성적인 분석에서도 옹호하기 매우 어렵다: 그는 기본적으로 계산 가능한 숫자와 중단되는 문제에 대해 시간의 시험을 견뎌온 두 개의 논문을 썼다.둘 다 중요하지만 본질적으로 좁고 학문적인 주제다.이것을 그의 작업과 함께 실제로 초기 기계를 만드는 작업과 함께, 역사가 그가 잘못된 말을 지원했다는 것을 보여준 몇 가지 예(예: 명령어 해독 사용)가 있다.기념비적으로무능력 (토크) 01:57, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

"컴퓨터 과학의 아버지"를 떨어뜨리는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다.더 짧고, 더 객관적인 모호함.모두가 승자다.구립(토크) 02:04, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.아프리카, 이것은 영국에서 극히 이례적인 움직임이다.왕실 사면이 내려지는 경우는 거의 없으며 아무도 그 주제가 잘못 유죄라고 주장하지 않는 "범죄"를 범하는 것은 전례가 없는 일로 보인다.이것은 LBGT 권리를 위해 운동하는 사람들과 컴퓨터/크립토그래피에 관심이 있는 사람들 모두에게 관심이 될 것이다.블러브를 하향 조정해야 한다는 것에 동의한다.에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 02:11, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 이례적이다.NBC (The Independent)는 이 권력이 사용된 것은 1945년 이후 세 번째라고 말하고 있다; [9] NBC 또한 여왕 자신으로부터 성명을 통해 "알란 매티슨 튜링에게 우리의 은혜와 자비를 베풀어주고, 그 신념과 관련하여 사후에 그에게 우리의 자유사면을 허락하게 되어 영광"이라고 말했다. 331dot (talk 02:14:, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

다른 두 사람은 누구였습니까?HiLo48 (대화) 04:06, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

지명 소식통들 중 한 명[10]은 "1945년 이후 영국 및 웨일즈에서 왕실의 특권 아래 세 건의 고위층 사면만이 티모시 에반스, 데릭 벤틀리, 마이클 실즈에게 주어졌다"고 말한다.프라임헌터 (대화) 04:18, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 원래의 모호함을 지지하라. 그것은 문서화된 행위를 반영한다. 반대는 여왕이 자신의 이름으로 어떤 행위를 지지하거나 이해하지 않는다는 불법적이고 추정된 정치적 가정에 기초한다.μΔείςς (talk) 03:37, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 지원 쌓기 지원 - 매우 중요한 결정이며 역사에 남을 획기적인 사건.그리고 크리스마스에도 모두가 승리한다.독토브 03:42, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 알트블루브 1세는 원래의 (현재의 알트) 흐엉을 복원했는데, 이는 QEII가 자발적으로 공적인 법령을 지지한 행위라는 것을 반영하는 것으로, 2차 세계대전 이후 세 번째 사면이며, 튜링이 전쟁 영웅임을 추가하는 것을 지지하기도 한다.μΔείςς (토크) 03:50, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

QEII가 정부가 그녀에게 부탁한 행동을 "자발적으로 지지"하지 않았다는 일이 일어난 적이 있는가?로열 어센트의 경우 1708년 이후는 분명 그런 일이 일어나지 않았다.영국 군주제#헌법적 역할도 참조한다.프라임헌터 (대화) 04:29, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 내가 이걸 올렸지, 완벽을 선의 적이 되게 놔두지 않기 위해서.나는 그것이 모호하기 때문에 "거의 우유부단함"을 꺼냈다.그는 동성애자라는 이유로 유죄판결을 받았다.이 기사는 남성 동성애자들을 기소하는 데 주로 사용되었다는 것을 꽤 잘 설명하고 있다.가장 좋은 표현, 특히 그가 사면된 이유에 필수적이기 때문에 언급할 수 있는 훌륭한 제안은 계속 논의해 주길 바란다.Jehchman 04:51, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 그의 "전쟁 서비스"는 2차 세계 대전 동안 그의 초기 코드 해독과 컴퓨터 작업이었다.몇몇 사람들은 그와 그의 동료들이 영국을 위해 전쟁에서 이겼다고 제안했다.그의 이야기는 그 당시 자연스레 극비였기 때문에, 그리고 전쟁이 끝난 후 상당 기간 동안 항상 어려움을 겪었다.사실, 우리는 아직 전체 이야기를 가지고 있다고 확신할 수 없다.그리고 나는 "총체적인 우유부단함"이 사실 모호한지 잘 모르겠다.그것은 정확히 그가 기소한 범죄다.그것은 확실히 법적으로 애매한 것은 아니다.그러나 더 이상의 설명이 없으면 독자들에게는 분명치 않을 것이다.HiLo48 (대화) 05:20, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

그는 BBC와 연계된 기사에서 "그의 만년의 삶은 동성애 활동에 대한 유죄 판결로 가려졌다"고 말했다. 그 판결은 이제 부당하고 차별적인 것으로 간주되어 폐지되었다"고 그레이링 씨는 말했다.

• 대통령?나는 전쟁과 동성애에 대해 크게 걱정하지 않는다. 나는 누군가가 미국의 대통령 사면이라고 말하지 않고 '대통령 사면'을 받았다는 사실을 결코 공표하지 않을 것이다.나라나 여왕 없이 "왕실"을 출판하는 것은 진고이스트적 편협함의 극치다.μΔείςς (talk) 05:50, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 나는 이것이 문제라는 것에 동의한다.나는 "영국 정부에 의해"라고 덧붙였다.사면이 시작되었고 크리스 그레이링이 텔레그래프 팩시밀리를 보면서 서명한 것으로 보여서 엘리자베스 2세를 명시적으로 명명하는 것이 정확한지는 잘 모르겠다.하지만 누군가 더 좋은 생각을 가지고 있다면 그것은 이상적이지 않다.아마도 완전히 "영국 컴퓨터 과학자와 코드브레이커 개척"으로 다시 쓰일 것이다."과잉 "컴퓨터 과학의 아버지"를 국적을 취득하고, 코드 위반 전쟁에 대해 언급하는 것은?에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 10:04, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

난 에스프레소 중독자가 좋아나는 "영국 정부"가 그를 사면했다고 말하는 것은 옳지 않다고 생각한다 - 그는 영국 정부의 조언에 따라 여왕에 의해 사면되었다.정식 왕실 문서는 대개 정부 장관에 의해 반서명되는데, 그는 여왕의 서명을 받는 것이 좋다(문서 자체나 여왕의 사인 매뉴얼에 따라 영장을 받아라, 그렇지 않으면 사면은 무효가 되고 그는 형사 범죄를 저지를 것이기 때문이다!넬잭 (대화) 11시 47분, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

ITN에 대한 징고이즘에 대해 불평하고 있는 중인가?아이러니한 걸 좋아하다니!어쨌든, 영국 정부를 언급할 필요는 없었고, 그는 영국인이었고, 그의 유죄판결은 영국 법정에 있었기 때문에, 분명히 사면은 영국 정부가 할 것이다.국적이 있어야 한다면 '영국의 아버지 앨런 튜링'이라고 말하는 것이 더 타당하다.Fgf10 (대화) 11:52, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

나는 일종의 심각한 비난이고, 근거 없는 비방도 아니고, 내가 주장하는 진고이즘의 몇 가지 예가 도움이 될 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:33, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

나는 내가 언급했던 개정된 공식에 동의한다; '영국인의 컴퓨터 과학 아버지'는 나에게 나쁘게 읽힌다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 16:03, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

현재의 블럽은 비록 내가 공유하지는 않지만 (영국이라는 단어를 포함시킨 것이 엘리자베스 2세 여왕, 데이비드 카메론, 그레이링, "정부" 등이 튜링을 사면했다는 것을 모든 사람들에게 분명히 하지 않는 한) 메데이스의 우려를 간신히 다루고 있다.하지만 너무 길다."1952년 동성애 활동으로 유죄판결을 받은 영국의 컴퓨터 과학자와 코드브레이커 앨런 튜링은 사후 왕실 사면을 받는다."와 같은 것으로 다듬을 수 있을까?The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

아직 아무도 그가 영국인이라고 주장하지 않았다는 것이 놀랍기만 하다.HiLo48 (대화) 23:25, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

허허. 어떤 행정관이라도 "컴퓨터 과학의 아버지"라고 포스팅을 한다는 것이 놀랍지만, 어쩌면 우리는 갑자기 레드탑이 된 것인지도 모른다.The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

무슨 일이야, 램블러!마치 다른 ITN 기고자를 쓰러뜨릴 것처럼!Martinevans123 (대화) 23:33, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

축제 기간일 수도 있지만 우리 모두는 미친 사람처럼 행동하고 있다.The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

우리 중 많은 사람들이 위키에서 잠깐 쉬려고 체크인했을 거야.나도 알아!Martinevans123 (대화) 23:43, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

조심해.당신의 유머를 간식거리게 할 독사적인 생명체들이 있다.The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

날개가 없다

날개도 필요 없고 이빨도 있고...The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

나의 우려는 해결되었지만, "1952년 동성애 활동에 대한 심각한 우유부단함"이라는 추가에 의해서가 아니라, 적어도 6단어는 너무 길다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:28, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

그 이상한 혼합물보다는 낫지납북(이유) 04:50, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

울, 그래.그리고 검은 과부에게 물리는 것이 방울뱀에게 물리는 것보다 낫다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:57, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

12월 23일

---

[RD에 게시됨] RD:미하일 칼라시니코프

• 내 의견에 찬성하지 마라.캡틴Rik (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 똑바로 서포트하라 그래, 내 생각에는.미야가와(토크) 17:03, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 그의 시대를 위해 그의 분야에서 단연 으뜸가는 지지를 보내라.비록 지금은 레이저가 있지만, 그것과 비교해야 할까? 아니, 페이스북만 해The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 지지하고 놀랍게도 "..또한 시인을 꿈꾸며 시를 썼다."Martinevans123 (대화) 17:19, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 그를 지지하라.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 확실히 지지해줘.Ruby 2010/2013 17:31, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC)
• 코멘트 나도 이것을 완전히 흐릿하게 하려고 생각했지만, 우선 다른 사람들의 코멘트를 좀 보자.칼라시니코프는 확실히 가장 뛰어난 무기 설계자 중 한 명이었고 그의 발명품 AK-47은 수십 년 동안 전세계적으로 대량 생산되어 왔다.기사의 도입부에서는 "다른 소총들을 합친 것보다 더 많은 AK-리플이 생산되었다"고 언급하기도 한다.이제 이것이 설득력 있는 논쟁과 함께 신속한 지지를 받았으니, 아마도 완전한 모호성을 고려해 볼 만할 것이다.-키릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
  • 음, 만약 당신이 지원한다면, 우리가 먼저 RD를 하고, 그리고 나서 그것이 완전한 블럽의 품질 요구 조건을 충족하는지 볼 수 있을까?The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
    • 물론이지RD에서 먼저 하고, 우리가 게시물을 올릴 수 있는지 보기보다.-키릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 17:41, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
      • 나는 RD에 게시하는 것이 더 행복하지만, 최근에 내가 감히 의견을 표현한다면, 나는 지역사회의 합의를 평가하는 것에 대해 화가 난다.즉시 게시할 겁니다.The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• RD에 게시됨.이것은 공천관리자 명단에 RD로 표기되어 있었기 때문에, 나는 거기에 지원을 하는 것을 전제로, 거기에 글을 올렸다.만약 사람들이 일반적으로 블럽이 그들이 원하는 것이라고 말한다면, 나도 이것을 완전히 블럽으로 올릴 수 있다.스펜서^T♦C 17:52, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 전 세계에 알려진 매우 주목할 만한 무기 설계자, 전 세계적으로 알려진 것을 지원하라.Mjroot (대화) 19:14, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 완전히 반대하다.비록 많은 사람들이 알아볼 이름이지만, 우리는 오랜 병후에 60여년 전에 가장 중요한 일을 한 아흔네 살 노인의 죽음에 대해 이야기하고 있다.오늘날 세상을 변화시킬 뉴스가 아니다. 79.75.95.135 (토크) 19:23, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 그의 발명품의 이름은 그의 이름보다 오래 지속될 것 같다.그가 헛소리를 할 자격이 있는 바로 그 이유?Martinevans123 (대화) 19:40, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 물론이지. 지난 세기에 얼마나 많은 사람들이 그의 이름으로 그렇게 많은 무기를 만들었는지는 확실치 않아. 그 무기들 중 수백만개는 오늘날에도 여전히 사용되고 있어.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

완전 퍼브 지원 - 매우 주목할 만한 사람 - EugεnS'm'on(14) ® 20:16, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC

• blurb 반대 부고 사건의 blurb를 지지하기 전에 내가 요구하는 아주 높은 문턱에는 가지 않는다.언론 보도는 많이 받지만 세계 뉴스를 이끌지는 못하고 있다.넬잭 (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC) 20:41, (UTC)
• blurb 반대 - 이것은 정확히 RD가 의도한 종류의 죽음이다.그의 분야에서 매우 주목할 만하고, 명단에 오를 가치가 있지만, 모호한 후보자들은 거의 항상 맹목적으로 명백해야 한다. ( 대처/만델라를 생각한다.이것은 우리가 보통 흐림으로써 요구했던 것에 크게 못 미치는 것이다. --봉와리어 (대화) 22:46, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 음, 그들이 정말 거물인 것 같아.Martinevans123 (대화) 22:52, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

뭐라고? --봉와리어(토크) 01:00, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

미안 봉아, 좀 덜 건방진 말이었어.Martinevans123 (대화) 12:19, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• blurb 반대 자기 분야에서 칼라시니코프 씨의 중요성은 분명히 의심할 여지가 없지만(그는 아마도 세계에서 가장 인정받는 총기 디자이너일 것이다), 이것은 정확히 RD가 세워진 유형이다.그의 사망은 중요하지만, 이미 언급된 이름들 중 일부가 완전히 흐릿하게 게시된 것처럼 세상을 뒤흔들지는 않는다. --hydrox (대화) 23:52, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 푸시 라이엇러스 석방

명명자의 의견:3개 조항 모두 업데이트됨.다행히 그런 내기는 하지 않았다.브랜드마이스터^talk 11:41, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC)

.. 맛있는 푸시모자 한 조각, 누구 없어?Martinevans123 (대화) 12:09, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

하나 둘 남았어?캐스퍼가 변덕스러워 보이는데...The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 모든 사람들이 올림픽을 소치에서 개최하는 것에 대해 기분이 좋아지게 하기 위해 모든 반게이 법으로 홍보에 반대한다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 정치적/인권적 이유로 공천에 반대하십니까?모하메드 CJ (대화) 13:29, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 아니, 홍보용으로 반대하는 것은, 제2차 세계대전 포로들이 적십자가 방문하기 직전에 담요를 주었을 때, 적십자가 떠날 때 그들을 제거하기 위해서였다.소치에서 눈이 뜨면 어떻게 될까...?The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 범프 위는 이미 전 유코스 올리고치의 발매 소식을 올렸다.이것은 거의 같은 이야기의 일부분이다."[...]와 두 명의 푸시 라이엇"으로 기존 블럽을 수정하고 범프를 하면 된다. --hydrox (토크) 12:45, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

새로운 헛소리보다는 혹에 동의하지만, 사면은 분명히 25,000명의 사람들을 대상으로 한다. 그게 더 좋은 초점이 되지 않을까?구립(대화) 13:15, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

BBC가 2만 명을 인용하고 있지만, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC) 13시 23분(토크)

나는 블러브를 부딪치는 것이 더 합리적이라는 것에 동의한다.블라디미르 푸틴 러시아 대통령은 사업가 미하일 호도르코프스키와 푸시 라이엇 멤버 2명 등 수천명의 수감자들을 사면했다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 13:27, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 모하메드 CJ의 제안된 혹을 지지하고 다시 쓰세요.큰 이야기지만 완전히 새로운 이야기는 아니다.알렉스 티플링 (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 모하메드 CJ의 최신 광고 후크를 지지하십시오. 이는 근본적으로 소치까지 이어지는 동일한 홍보 활동의 일부분이기 때문이다.푸시 라이엇은 그들의, 음, 상황이 진행되는 동안 상당한 뉴스 보도를 해왔기 때문에, 그들의 석방이 게시되어야 하지만, 두 개의 다른 모호함을 가질 이유는 없다.– Muboshgu (대화) 14:09, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 지지하되 소치 이전에 푸틴이 더 좋은 관계를 맺는 것은 모두 푸틴을 위해서라는 점을 언급해야 한다.--밥바Q (대화) 14:20, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• .. 그래, 꽤 - 이것은 민주주의의 실천에 대한 시범인가, 아니면 단순히 개인의 자애로운 폭군의 홍보 기계인가? (... 아니면 우리가 관심을 가져야 할까?)Martinevans123 (대화) 14:22, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 푸틴을 농담으로 간주하는 것에 우리 대부분은 동의할 수 있다고 생각한다....:)--밥바Q (대화) 14:27, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 심지어 푸시 라이엇더조차도 그것이 홍보용이라고 생각한다고 말했다.The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

..하지만 위키피디아 1면은 정치적으로 공평하게 보여야 한다?Martinevans123 (대화) 14:33, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• (PR 스턴트 분석에 적절한 가중치를 부여하는 등 서로 다른 POV를 커버할 공간이 부족하기 때문에) 개봉 동기에 대한 분석이 메인 페이지에 실려야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.그들은 분명히 기사에 속하며, 아마도 납을 포함한 것일 것이다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC) 14:48

• 모하메드 CJ의 합병에 대한 지지값어치를 위해서, 이것은 ITN 버전에 있는 독일 위키(Tolokonnikova의 사진)가 하는 것이다. [11]Sca (토크) 15:22, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
  • 흠, 저 그림이 왜 그렇게 만들었는지 궁금하군.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
  • 그리고 뤼에는 훨씬 무표정한 그림도 있다.위키 1면도...Martinevans123 (대화) 15:29, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
    • 나는 이것을 제안한다. (흐름을 쓰면서 그것에 대해 생각하고 있었다.브랜드마이스터^talk 15:44, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC)
• 알트 블러브 수천 명의 러시아 죄수들이 석방되는데, 여기에는 사업가 미하일 호도르코프스키와 푸시 라이엇의 두 멤버가 사면을 받고 있다.푸틴으로부터 초점을 없애고 죄수들에게 배치하기 위해 이것을 제안하라.μΔείςς (talk) 15:40, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 좋아.호도르코프스키가 법안에 앞서 석방되었기 때문에 마지막 네 마디만 지울 수 있었지만, 내가 틀릴 수도 있었다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 16:11 (UTC)

나는 네가 그것에 대해 옳다고 생각해.또한 자본이 열악한 볼로트나야 광장 사건의 피고인들이 석방되고 있다.구립(토크) 16:18, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

나는 차라리 부딪치는 것을 반대한다.보도에 따르면 호도르코프스키는 독일-러시아 비밀협상을 거쳐 별도의 대통령령으로 사면될 것으로 보인다.12월 9일, 사면 법안은 호도르코프스키와 관련이 없을 것이라고 발표되었다.브랜드마이스터^talk 17:04, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

나는 푸틴이 두 장의 별개의 종이 조각에 서명하는 것이 우리가 두 개의 다른 모호함을 가질 필요가 있다는 것을 의미하는지 잘 모르겠다.구립(토크) 17:26, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

나는 두 케이스가 서로 연결되어 있다는 것을 암시하지 않고 가능한 혹에 대해 altblurb를 추가했다. (만약 그 반대의 경우 변경될 수 있다.)브랜드마이스터^talk 20:00, 2013년 12월 23일(UTC)

(충돌 편집)*Alt Blurb 2만 명 이상의 러시아 죄수들을 사면하고, 미하일 호도르코프스키와 푸시 라이엇의 두 멤버를 포함한 사면법안에 따라 석방한다.이 이벤트에 대한 모든 종류의 흐릿함에 대한 지원.셰어링크 (대화) 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC) 16:13

• 내가 보기에 어려운 점은 우리는 일반 사면과 아무런 관련이 없다는 것이다. 단지 세 개인에게만.나는 어떤 기사가 사용될지 확신할 수 없다.μΔείςς (토크) 17:00, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• 논평 - 호도르코프스키는 대통령에 의해 개인적으로 사면된 반면 푸시 라이엇 멤버들은 헌법 20주년을 기념하기 위해 의회가 발표한 일반 사면에 의해 석방된 25,000명의 죄수들 중 한 명이었다.호도르코프스키가 일반 사면 대상에 포함됐다고 말하는 것은 옳지 않다. -- 브루자옴 (대화) 20:22, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)
• MohamedCJ가 제안한 개정안에 따라 Medeis의 제안된 blurb를 지지한다.이유:(1) 푸틴의 동기가 무엇인지는 아마 우리 모두 동의할 수 있지만, 최소한 출처들에 대한 면밀한 조사는 생략하고, 푸틴의 동기가 무엇인지를 언급하는 NPOV 문제들이 있다.(2) 일반 사면이 더 중요한 일이므로, 그것은 분명히 밝혀야 한다.엘리도 최고위급 사례와 함께 포함된다. (3) 사면법안에 모든 것이 들어 있지 않기 때문에 언급하지 않는 것이 최선이며, (4) 푸틴 대통령에 대한 언급이 아니라 많은 것이 입법(사면법안)을 받고 있는 것처럼 보이기 때문에 푸틴을 언급하지 않는 것이 최선이다.넬잭 (대화)20:36, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 노 코멘트, 대통령의 기업인 사면과는 달리 푸틴은 적어도 기술적으로는 일반 사면 배후에 있지 않다.그것은 NPVO라는 것을 암시한다.그러므로 일반 사면은 그 자체의 모호함을 가져야 한다.하지만 문제는 아직 일반 사면을 다룬 구체적인 기사가 없다는 것이다...브루자옴 (대화)20:48, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 네, 두마가 12월 17일 법안에 의해 제재된 현재 진행 중인 사면 절차와 때를 같이한 호도르코프스키의 사면과는 달리, 사면 법안은 두마에 의해 통과되었다.브랜드마이스터^talk 21:05, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

• 알트블러브2 이것: 사업가 미하일 호도르코프스키의 사면 이후 푸시 라이엇의 두 멤버를 포함한 수천 명의 러시아 죄수들이 사면과 사면을 혼동하지 않는다는 문제를 고치고 있으며, 현재의 알트블러브보다 키가 작다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:19, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

좋아, 'Riot' 뒤에 'rock band'를 추가하는 것을 제외하고. Sca (토크) 23:19, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

"푸시"가 더 낫기 전에, 좀 더 부드럽게 합시다.우리는 대신 "비즈니스맨"을 잃을 수도 있다.구립 (대화) 23:33, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

나는 록 밴드를 추가했고 사업가를 유지했다.준비 완료 표시.μΔείςς (talk) 00:17, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

(PS, 명백히 이것은 코도로프스키의 뭉침이다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:46, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 게시물이야, 메데이스의 블러브와 호도르코프스키를 결합해서 썼어에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 01:57, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 이제 그린피스 북극 30개 시위대가 석방되기 시작했는데, 확실히 이 홍보에 포함되어야 하는가?The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 아직도 배고프니?Martinevans123 (대화) 15:04, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 1페니에 1파운드에...어쨌든 난 아직 배가 고프다...The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

이제 Talk의 서명되지 않은 노트:메인_페이지#Errors_in_인_the_news는 푸시 라이엇이 "락밴드가 아니다"라고 단언한다.우리의 출품작에는 "러시아 페미니스트 펑크록 시위 단체"라고 명시되어 있다.어쩌면 록 밴드라는 말이 록 밴드라는 말로 대체되어야 할까.Sca (대화) 16:17, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

글쎄... 네가 결정해.할로웨이의 세인트 존이 자랑스러울 거라고 확신해.Martinevans123 (대화) 16:28, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

펑크 밴드는 유튜브에서 그들의 항의 기도 영상을 볼 때 더 말이 될 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 16:39, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

..그리고 그들의 기사도.아니면 라이엇 그롤은 어때?Martinevans123 (대화) 17:05, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

글쎄, "집단"은 PR을 "밴드" 또는 더 구체적으로 "록밴드"로 식별하지 않는 덕목이 있는 것 같다. 따라서 "실험집단"은 누군가의 정의를 위반하지 않을 만큼 충분히 모호할 수 있지만, 그것의 존재 이유를 명확히 할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 정확할 수 있고, 적어도 (종류의) 음악을 매개체로 암시할 수 있을 것이다.Sca (대화) 17:17, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

나는 펑크 그룹이 괜찮다고 생각해, 왜냐하면 언론에서는 보통 그렇게 표현하니까.시위 집단은 너무 지나쳐서 주의를 요하지 못하고 애매모호하게 된다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:48, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

물론 위키피디아가 펑크록이라고 부르겠다고 하지만..마르티네반스123(토크)

그들의 유튜브를 보고 난 후 나는 그들을 "시범 예술가"라고 부르고 싶을 것이다. 만약 당신이 그것을 본다면, 당신은 아마도 그들에게 감옥이나 교도소 같은 것 말고도 ITN과 같은 존경받는 부동산을 허가하는 것이 부끄러울 것이다.— 98.23.25.59(대화)가 추가된 이전 미서명 주석

우리는 그런 식으로 이야기를 판단하기 위해서 온 것이 아니라, 단지 뉴스에 게재될 만큼 무엇이 뉴스에 실렸는지를 판단하기 위해서 온 것이다.331dot (대화) 11:57, 2013년 12월 27일 (UTC)

• 지금 이 묘기의 일환으로 "그린피스 북극 30"이 출시되고 있다는 점을 언급하십시오. 이 애매모호한 내용은 업데이트되어야 한다.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 그린피스 북극 해돋이 선박 사건이지만 업데이트가 필요하다.브랜드마이스터^talk 00:47, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

• 논평 2: 아마도 "페미니스트 펑크 록 시위 그룹"을 잃는 것이 최선일 것이다. 푸시 라이엇은 이미 연결되어 있기 때문에 우리는 짧은 ITN 블럽에서 그들의 스타일, 방법, 목표 등을 "해석"할 필요가 없다.The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 그래, 나도 그걸 버리고 푸시 라이엇을 떠나는 걸 좋아해브랜드마이스터^talk 00:47, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

아마도 "푸시 라이엇의 멤버들"일 것이다. 하지만 우리는 우리의 독자들이 그들이 어떤 설명 없이 무엇인지 알 수 없을 것이라고 추측할 수 없다. 그리고 모스에 따르면 링크는 모호하지 않아야 한다.만약 긴 시간 동안 받아야 할 불만이 있다면 그것은 수호성인 앨런의 성범죄에 대한 세 페이지짜리 설명이다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:30, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

전하는 바에 의하면 "바위의 앨런"으로 알려져 있다.Martinevans123 (대화) 11:58, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

나데즈다 톨로콘니코바와 함께 사진을 업데이트해야 할 때가 된 것 같은데, 호도르코프스키의 얼굴은 이미 얼마 전부터 그곳에 걸려 있었고, 그리 최근이 아니다.브랜드마이스터^talk 11:45, 2013년 12월 25일(UTC)

ITN이 섹스를 한 것 같군The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

12월 22일

---

[포스팅] 2013년 세계 여자 핸드볼 선수권 대회

브라질은 세계선수권대회에서 우승한 최초의 남미 국가가 되었다.핸드볼 이야기는 대부분 과거 대륙 유럽, 동아시아, 일부 아프리카 국가에서만 높은 수준에서 경기가 진행됐다는 이유만으로 극명하게 대립했지만, 이번 대회는 다른 지역에서도 인기가 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. --키릴 시메오노프스키(토크) 17:58, 2013년 12월 22일(UTC)

• 알트 블러브를 좋아하는 댓글.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
  • 불편하게 해서 미안해.나는 기사 업데이트에 관여했고, 이전 후보 중 하나에서 그 내용을 복사한 후 박스 안에 남아 있는 것에 주의를 기울이지 않았다.-기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 18:50, 2013년 12월 22 (토크)-기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 18:50, 2013년 12월 22 (UTC)
    • 걱정 마, 그냥 가벼운 장난이었어. 복사해서 붙여넣는 실수가 얼마나 쉽게 일어날 수 있는지 알아.The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
• 지지 - 남미 팀이 승리하는 첫 번째 시기인 만큼 핸드볼이 흐려진다.알트가 왜 같은 지명을 받았는지 모르겠다.이상하다.--BabbaQ (대화) 18:28, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
• 논평 나는 더 많은 산문으로 기사를 업데이트했고, 특히 결승전에 관한 부분을 업데이트했다.--Kiril Simeonovski (토크) 18:49, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
• 대형 국제 스포츠의 최고 여성 이벤트 지원.우리는 2013년 유럽이 10위권 전체를 차지했을 때 그 남자들을 게시했다.과감한 링크 역시 핸드볼이라고 말할 때 "핸드볼에서"가 마음에 들지 않는다."핸드볼에서"를 생략하거나 다음 링크에서 "핸드볼"을 제거한다.프라임헌터 (대화)20:33, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
  • 굵은 글에서 삭제됨.--Kiril Simeonovski (토크) 22:50, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
• 서포트 핸드볼은 유럽에서 가장 인기 있는 여자 단체 스포츠다.[13][14] 넬잭 (대화) 20:44, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
• "최종" 섹션이 하나의 (1차?) 소스만 참조하는 것처럼 보이기 때문에 약한 지지만 약하다.더 많은 참고자료를 찾아 주시겠습니까?The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
  • 섹션 갱신 당시는 기말고사가 끝난 지 1시간도 채 지나지 않았고, 이를 문서화하는 기사가 그리 많지 않았기 때문이다.좀 더 찾아서 기사로 가져오도록 하겠다.--기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 22:48, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
  • 결승전 섹션에 더 많은 레퍼런스 추가 - 키릴 시메오노프스키(토크) 23:35, 2013년 12월 22일(UTC)
• 게시. 에스프레소 중독자(대화) 02:23, 2013년 12월 23일 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 스페인의 낙태 제한

12월 21일

---

데이비드 콜맨

• 그래, 내가 한 방 먹일게.1955년 이후 영국의 저명한 스포츠 방송국은 아니더라도 저명한 인물로서, 11번의 올림픽 경기와 6번의 월드컵을 BBC에서 방영했다.OBE는 세계 최초로 올림픽 오더 상을 받았다.우리 영국인들은 아마 다른 곳에서는 영(0)을 상징하지만 그건 관련이 없다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 전설적인 콜맨볼의 영감이 될 수만 있다면!하지만 영국의 스포츠 방송의 아이콘은 그렇다.Martinevans123 (토크) 19:48, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 지원 4 RD 분명히, 그는 이곳에서 정말 유명했고 스포츠 논평 분야에서 눈에 띄었다. --Somchai Sun (토크) 19:57, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 위의 코멘트에 따라 RD를 지원하십시오.스포츠 코메디언의 죽음에 내가 지지해 주리라고는 상상하기 좀 어렵지만, 그가 올림픽 오더상을 받은 최초의 방송인이었고, 그의 이름이 그의 직업에 널리 적용되는 용어를 만드는 데 사용되었다는 사실 등, 그가 일생 동안 받은 모든 장점을 종합하면, 내가 지지하기에 충분할 것이다.t.중요한 것은, 나는 영국에 살지 않는다.--키릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 20:23, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 이 사람이 자기 분야에서 최고가 되거나 어떤 식으로든 영향력이 있다고 주장하는 것은 아니다.만약 그의 말이 방송되는 대신에, 인쇄되어 있다면, 그를 아는 사람이 있을까?μΔείςς (talk) 20:26, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

  ..그것은 내가 얼마간 보아온 반대론에 대한 가장 이상한 "이유"이다.Martinevans123 (대화) 20:32, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

그 말은 만약 그의 논평이 방송이 아니라 오로지 인쇄물에만 있었다면 이 사람이 후보로 지명되었을 것이라고 솔직하게 말할 수 없다는 뜻인가?μΔείςς (talk) 21:03, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

난 그냥 그가 한 짓에 대해 투표하는 거야 그가 한 짓에 대해서 말이야Martinevans123 (대화) 21:28, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

아마도 우리는 그가 모든 인용문을 데 다하 다하스를 통해 발표했더라면 더 많은 관심을 기울였을 것이다...아니면 너 다음이야?누가 또 술집에 갔나봐....

"그것이 들어갔다면 골이 되었을 텐데."Martinevans123 (대화) 22:36, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

• • Pat Summall은 4월에 RD에 게시되었다.비록 공천을 전반적으로 지지하지는 않았지만, 역시 정확히 반대하지는 않으셨습니다.그 사람들이 이룬 성과에 대해 얘기했잖아 그건 네가 조사를 했단 걸 보여주는 거야그 명목상의 지지표까지 비판하셨잖아요.메데이스, 담요를 이렇게 반대하게 만들기 전에 스스로에게 알려야 해.왜 이 사람이 RD에 한 자리를 차지할 자격이 있는지 우리 모두 말할 수는 없지만, 직접 정보에 입각한 결정을 내려야 한다. --Somchai Sun (대화) 20:47, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

도대체 무슨 소리를 하는 거야?뭘 배웠다고?나는 콜먼의 기사를 읽었다.그는 기사 작위를 받았어. 다른 중요한 건 없어. 그리고 만약 그게 중요한 거라면 우린 계속해서 죽은 기사들을 포스팅했을 거야.기사 너머에 있는 증거의 부담은 지명자에게 있다.게임에서 이 사람의 말을 듣지 않은 사람이 유목민을 지지할 이유는 없어. 템플릿에도 있는 사실이지.μΔείςς (talk) 21:01, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

그래, 아마도 주어진 충고를 받아들일 가치가 있을 거야.그는 기사 작위를 받지 않았으니, 그 기사(예: "자신을 교육하라")를 다시 써 보십시오.올림픽훈장(지명에서 언급된 바와 같이)도 수상해 전 세계 뉴스에 분명히 오르내리고 있다.그래도 당신의 즐거운 반대는 고맙지만, 아주..."불쌍한"The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)

• 아마도 영국에서 가장 유명한 스포츠 리포터인 RD에 대한 지원 [16] [17] [18] [19] 블랙 카이트 (토크) 20:37, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 지지 - 수십 년 동안 영국에서 가장 유명한 스포츠 방송인.기머틀 (대화)20:43, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 국민 스포츠 해설가 RD에 대한 지원. 하지만 중요한 것.그러나 RD에만 해당된다.--BabbaQ (대화) 20:44, 2013년 12월 21일 (UTC)
• 게시. --Jayron32 20:50, 2013년 12월 21일(UTC)
• 후기 지원영국 스포츠 방송인 그의 분야에서 단연 최고였다.우리는 사람들이 다른 분야의 최고가 되었을지 아닌지에 대해 판단하지 않기 때문에 그가 인쇄기자였다면 알려졌을지 여부는 그가 이스라엘 무대 마술사나 멕시코 정치인이었더라면 알려졌을지 정확하게 관련이 있다.Thryduulf (대화) 14:39, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)

향후 공천 가능성에 대한 비생산적인 추측 붕괴스펜서T♦C 20:25, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
John Madden의 코멘트는 RD가 결국 그것을 캐치할 때 RD에 성공하는 것이 더 낫다. 그가 그것을 15:33, 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC) 나는 그가 특히 경기에서의 체계적 편견과 함께 할 것이라고 확신한다. 하지만 그것은 거의 60년 경력의 국제적으로 인정받는 스포츠 진행자와 관련이 있다.뭔가 똑똑한 걸 덧붙일 수 있겠나?The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 12월 22일 (UTC)

12월 20일

---

35개의 주폭풍이 북아메리카 전역에 폭설을 일으킨다.

--Jax 0677 (대화) 12:24, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 나는 이미 국립 기상청이 이 폭풍들의 이름을 짓고 평범한 날씨 사건들을 크게 떠벌리는 것에 꽤 지쳐가고 있다.여기 지명된 사람들 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명 한 명씩 여기 지명된납북(이유) 15:48, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)

• 국립기상청은 겨울 폭풍의 이름을 짓지 않는다; 그것은 기상 채널이 그들 자신의 목적을 위해 행하는 것이다. 그리고 모든 것은 아니지만, 일부 다른 아울렛에 의해 잡힌다.실제로 NWS는 직원들에게 TWC의 이름을 사용하지 말라고 지시했다. 윈터스톰 명명법을 참조하라. 331dot (대화) 04:18, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

• 반대한다. 나는 이것이 보통 겨울의 첫 번째 큰 폭풍과 어떻게 다른지 모르겠다.기록적인 폭설/운명성이 없는 한, 나는 이것과 유사한 사건들에 대해 반대할 것이다.스펜서^T♦C 19장 29절, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 논평 - 150개 이상의 강수 기록과 100개에 가까운 강설 기록이 미국 북동부, 남동부, 남부 중부에 걸쳐 깨졌다.2013년 12월 6일 댈러스-포트워스 메트로플렉스에는 0.1인치(2mm)의 일일 기록적인 강설이 내려 1950년에 세워진 미량의 눈 기록을 깼다. --Jax 0677 (토크) 21:55, 2013년 12월 24일 (UTC)
• 중립.이것은 광범위하게 보도되고 있지만, (피해 지역에 살고 있는 사람으로서) 그 영향은 재앙적인 것이 아니다.찬성하거나 반대하지 않겠다. 331닷 (대화) 04:18, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)
• 북반구는 겨울이야μΔείςς (talk) 04:30, 2013년 12월 25일 (UTC)

RSA 보안

명명자의 의견:이 회사는 NSA를 위해 스파이 활동을 하다 적발된 세계에서 가장 크고 권위 있는 컴퓨터 보안 회사 중 하나이다.이론적으로 보안 회사의 충성도는 고객에 대한 것이지만, 그들의 충성도는 NSA에 대한 충성도가 먼저였던 것 같다.나는 이것이 RSA Security뿐만 아니라 NSA가 백도어를 삽입할 수 있다는 두려움 때문에 이미 매출이 감소하고 있는 다른 미국 소프트웨어 및 하드웨어 제조업체에도 영향을 미칠 것이라고 생각한다.화요일 (토크) 23:53, 2013년 12월 20일 (UTC)

• Oppose. This doesn't even seem to be today's most talked-about Snowden leak ([20]). Formerip (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 둘 다 게시할 만큼 눈에 띈다.하지만 개인적으로 나는 NSA가 보안 제품에 뒷문을 삽입하기 위해 지불한 결과들이 훨씬 더 심오하다는 것을 안다. 물론 NSA는 첩보 대상들의 목록을 가지고 있다.화요일 (토크) 2013년 12월 21일 00:15 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. We should not post every bit of information that is chosen to be released by Snowden and/or his allies- which is being done in a manner meant to maximize publicity and artificially extend the attention he is given. A company cooperating with the NSA (likely out of wanting to help national security and not "loyalty to the NSA") doesn't even seem to be the most important bit of information released so far(although most pieces of information from the leaked info seem to be called "the most important"). 331dot (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not some conspiracy to artificially maximize Snowden's attention. The NSA news items are genuinely news. Journalism takes time, you don't start with the complete result able to publish it all at once. And everything RSA Security sells is trust - RSA Security putting in a back door for the NSA is not just another company coordinating with the NSA by forwarding some data RSA Security incidentally accumulated, but a subversion of RSA Security's core product (and again, remember the $21 billion yearly revenue - this it big). Thue (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy", which suggests a negative connotation that may not exist here, but it is a deliberate effort to maximize attention, led by the reporters Snowden gave his stolen/leaked information to. They aren't releasing information as they come across it, they are releasing what they think will generate the most attention. Since these sorts of stories get press all the time we might as well establish a Snowden ticker and get it over with, or add it to ITNR, or something. The leak or theft or whatever we call it of information happened and is over with; ITN shouldn't be a running play by play of what information Snowden and the reporters have and choose to release. 331dot (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, a ticker gives too much attention to non-stories and not enough attention to real ones. In this situation a sticky is just a type of desensitization by which an everpresent stimulus gradually becomes invisible. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree, but we seem to be heading in that direction anyway. 331dot (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

weak support while I agree with 331dot, this does put on a new perspective of the far reaching consequences. It is not just the spying but the transaction/agreement thereofLihaas (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with 331dot that these structured leaks are intended to maximise Snowden's notoriety, but like Lihaas, the financial transaction revealed here seems extremely significant. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support this is a government agency suborning outright fraud and theft. I have opposed many Snowden posts per EA, but agree this is extremely significant. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support security company sabotaging their own product, isn't that nice. SeraV (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support.. seems this story just won't go away. But if it's worthy of comment by Mr Obama, I think we ought to take note. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' I am not convinced that this is a noteworthy development in Snowden's epic saga, but the fact that the huge majority of readers have not herd of the company is sufficient to put this down. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd heard of neither company until I saw this nomination. I would have been just as gratified to have learned about them, in this context, if I had read it on the front page. But how do we know who has heard of them and who has not? How can this matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong oppose Obviously this will have tremendous implications to RSA Security, which is one of the world's largest IT security companies, but the implications of this outside the IT security field are minor. Sadly, most people are oblivious to this topic. --hydrox (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

One of our purposes is actually to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. This is very interesting piece of news that might interest many people, even if they are currently oblivious. SeraV (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Even more problems with the story, see below. --hydrox (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support A security company basically being bribed by the NSA seems pretty significant news to me. The suggestions that we're in danger of turning into a Snowden ticker are ridiculous - most the nominations on this subject haven't been posted. And I'd be interested to know what the evidence is for the claim that the information is being artificially strung out, as opposed to it taking a long time to go through the huge amount of material that Snowden has got. Neljack (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's artificial because the leak happened 6 months ago and is over and done with; they haven't been releasing information as they come across it, they know what they have; they are picking and choosing what to release and when to do it- partially as leverage to keep anything from happening to Snowden and partially to maintain attention on this issue and pressure on governments. Given the volume of Snowden related nominations and the fact that many of them get at least some support, I don't think the danger of being a ticker is as "ridiculous" as it seems to you. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• We've posted, what, one item on this in the last few months? Hardly a Snowden ticker. As for your claims about stringing it out, do you have any evidence for them, 331dot? There are 1.5 million documents; that's going to take a while to go through. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is true that I have only my personal opinion- but they could release it all at once before leaking it out in the press.331dot (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• This would be the third story on the Snowden leaks in five months, which is an awful lot. I can't think of any other news item that we've posted so many times without using a ticker. Teemu08 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As Formerip correctly notes, the real problem here is that this was not even the #1 NSA story of the day (nor #2, Obama's comments about the phone records). I did a cursory search of CNN, NBC News, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and CBC News and found information about these other stories but nothing about RSA. One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and I see little evidence of that. I will be happy to strike my oppose if this changes, but for now, we should not accept it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that there's more interest in Obama's comments on the NSA than the RSA revelation is like expecting our readers to be more interested in a speech on global warming than on the facts of a hurricane. Prominent coverage of the speech results from the simple fact the President has a press agent, while crimes themselves do not. If I wanted to read the president's speech, I'd get the full text at a newspaper site or look on youtube--we don't have that material. If I wanted objective comprehensive coverage of RSA I would come here. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the RSA part is not in the news. We cannot reasonably expect people to be looking for this if it is getting only a limited amount of coverage. Teemu08 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not our only purpose, as I said once already our other purpose is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. That part really is perfect for this particular piece. You really shouldn't be fixating just that one purpose we have. SeraV (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? There's only four of them. Teemu08 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marked ready updated, and stable consensus in favor of posting. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be big news among Wikipedians; less so among major news outlets. The update is also very short, if I assessed the update correctly. Iselilja (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A minority interest story that seems better suited for DYK. -Halo (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per this BBC News article - RSA strongly deny the reports. Until the facts are clear and unambiguous I can't see how we can feature this on the main page. CaptRik (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, on closer inspection this whole story is based on Reuters report that cites two anonymous sources "close" to the alleged deal. This is actually not a Snowden leak; all he showed was that NSA created a backdoored PRNG and managed to slip it into an RSA product. The alleged $10m deal is a Reuters story, citing anonymous sources with no documents to show to back it up whatsoever, unlike the actual Snowden leak. --hydrox (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow up on that is that RSA might actually be using convoluted legalese to deny knowingly weakening its product, while neither denying nor acknowledging the deal. But as long as RSA maintains this stance and we don't have the actual NSA/RSA contract, this seems a bit too uncertain to be posted here. --hydrox (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per Neljack. Interesting, significant, worldwide impact. Jusdafax 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Prostitution

Nominator's comments: Pretty landmark case, I dont think any other country has nationally legalised it, so it would be a famous first. --Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. We can't have "effectively legalises" in the blurb. They either legalised it or they didn't. If it remains technically illegal but the law is now not enforceable, we might say "decriminalises". Formerip (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court struck down the prostitution laws, but gave the government one year to enact new legislation during which the laws will still be in effect. This is legalization of prostitution, but I think that is waht the nominator was refering to. --PlasmaTwa2 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a major Western country having its prostitution laws struck down as illegal is big news. This is currently on the front page of BBC, as well. --PlasmaTwa2 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I do agree that we can not claim a court "effectively legalising" something. Full legalisation as I understand it would mean that any law criminalising prostitution and discretely advertising thereof would be voided, and prositute income made taxable, with promise that the government won't be changing that. This sounds more temporary and partial, am I right? --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Question, is there a one year grace period before it is legal or not? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no laws in Canada, specifically prohibiting the act of prostitution itself (i.e. transfer of money for sex). The Canadian province of Ontario attempted to introduce laws prohibiting prostitution (brothels, etc.), however, the Supreme Court of Canada, with this decision, has found that prostitution laws, such as the ones in Ontario, are unconstitutional. Thus, the court is upholding there should be no laws in Canada prohibiting prostitution. 99.226.109.53 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

So, what's different on the ground? Abductive (reasoning) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Today, nothing, as the decision is stayed for one year. But, if Parliament does nothing, then one year from now, brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and "communicating in public" with clients will all be legal. The government will obviously create new legislation within this time frame, so the actual impact is unknown. This remainds a landmark decision, however. Resolute 00:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support From what I see it's about three things: abolition of bans on brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for purposes of prostitution. That actually means that the prostitution is now legal, btw by an unanimous ruling. Brandmeister^talk 18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Prostitution was already legal. This ruling struck down a ban against pimping/brothels. Brothels are already legal in other Western countries like Germany and the Netherlands, so nothing extraordinary per se; only that this was done by the court instead of lawmakers. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose not in the news at all, perhaps trivia-worthy, but many countries have an "effective legal prostitution" scenario. This is nothing new. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Iselilja is correct that prostitution was already legal in Canada. Brandmeister correctly describes the three prohibitions the Court struck down. Having read the judgment, I do think it is a very significant ruling, which will have important implications not only for the regulation of prostitution but also for other areas of law (assisted suicide, a case on which is pending, has been mentioned in particular). Contra TRM, it most certainly is in the news.[21]Neljack (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Silly me, I should have Googled it. Oppose as not in the news, just in Google search. This has no genuine implications, life, and prostitution, will carry on regardless. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting twice? really? You should know much better than that as as admin than trying to cheat/game the system!

Sums up the ignorance of some editors then. Remember, we don't count votes, we assess arguments. I could bold oppose a thousand times, it makes no difference, the posting admin will assess consensus, not count votes. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I undid your second oppose bold "vote"Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How helpful. That'll really make a difference to the consensus-assessing admin's task. Well done you! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit we dont count voted. I agree we shouldnt but there are hordes of incidents (and on close counts) where mere supports/opposes with barely a realted reason is conisidered. There is clear vote counting going on.

Clearly "sums upo the ignorance of some..."Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins who count votes aren't assessing consensus correctly then. Please try to write in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support alt blurb, despite the fact, European countries have no legislation against prostitution, but this is after years of the law developing in those countries. There have been no court cases in those European countries that upholds that prostitution should be legal. In Canada, having two separate branches of government - the legislative (those who introduce laws) and the judicial (the courts) - to both agree on a subject matter such as prostitution is significant. 99.226.109.53 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional news sources: Houston Chronicle, USA Today, Fox News, Reuters, Huffington Post, CNN 99.226.109.53 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Puts The Great British Bake Off into perspective, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But the central questions are mainly the same, I think. Will it rise? Have I put enough butter in the bottom? What exactly do you plan to do with that eclair? Formerip (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

.. pass that essential protection, would you? ... [22] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unaware of major coverage, and thought this was already legal in Netherlands and Nevada. Very, very similar to Indian court decision we didn't just post. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - unusal happening,.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iselilja, The Rambling Man and Medeis. Prostitution under different conditions was legal in other western countries before this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I also don't like the attempt in some of the comments above to induce importance because the legalisation was done by an unusual authority. Sorry, but it's not the main news here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NK faxes South

[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovsky pardoned

Nominator's comments: The pardon, announced only yesterday, is reported to have been already signed and effective immediately. --hydrox (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to have been done ahead of the Olympics, in part at least, and might indicate an attempt to give a better human rights impression. Getting coverage in many outlets. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Significant and surprising news. Could we incorporate the amnesty bill the Duma has just passed into the blurb? I'd argue that's at least as significant. See: [24][25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 12:23, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
• Support - But I think the blurb should state that it is a political move.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Thue (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, if Pussy Riot are released that should be added to the blurb, agreed? Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If that happens in the next five days, I'll eat my cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Meow? Abductive (reasoning) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • “In 18th-century Britain, there are a few records of cats eaten as a form of entertainment.” Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Sadly, as a result of being diagnosed with @ssh013-itis, I've been advised by my medical team to just chow down on humble pie for the time being, until the nasty rash clears itself up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Having said that, I'm glad to see it's happened, despite the fact it's pure publicity. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

December 19

---

[Closed] London Apollo Theatre

Sinaloa Cartel leader Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza dead

Nominator's comments: According to the article on the Sinaloa Cartel, "The United States Intelligence Community considers the Sinaloa Cartel "the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world" and in 2011, the Los Angeles Times called it "Mexico's most powerful organized crime group." The death of a high ranking member of one of Mexico's most powerful crime/drug organizations is pretty notable. Andise1 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb, support RD. Inzunza Inzunza was not among the top high-ranking leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. I would support this nomination if it were Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada, or Juan José Esparragoza Moreno. I support for this RD, but I definitely oppose a blurb. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Gunmen have apparently snatched his body, just like the Zetas did with Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano. [26] We can expect an incredible amount of news sources about this event now. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support RD, per ComputerJa. I have removed the picture from the blurb because it is not free, and as such, it cannot be used on the main page. Küñall (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and Comment. If this is going to be posted, it should be as a blurb, as it is this man's death that is notable and not he himself; RD is for the deaths of notable people, not notable deaths. I oppose posting this as a blurb because as ComputerJA states he was not the top leader of the cartel and presumably did what he did at other people's orders. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose since he was not in fact the leader of the cartel. Neljack (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

support RD notable player in a violent and long-lasting [civil] conflictLihaas (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this has become commonplace to the point of needing a sticker, and it doesn't seem to be prominently covered. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not the top leader of the cartel. Spencer^T♦C 21:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Close. Since the article won't make it to the Main Page, I want to petition a close. The article has been nominated to DYK. See Template:Did you know nominations/Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] South Sudan update/bump

Nominator's comments: To confirm the more vaugue blurb we have now (as an update), today Bor was captured and the violence is spreading. --Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Normally I'd support, but this same story is already in ITN today. GoldenRing (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Its for./as an update/bump

BREAKING: UN compound stormed in Jonglei...this is recall the UN compounds in Srebrenica...Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're starting to promote breaking news to ITN, perhaps you should nominate a sticky. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm, that's not the blurb nomination. Just that the current ones needs refinementLihaas (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I updated and bumped. Thue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Question Is this story going to be blurbed and/or bumped with each new twist and turn it takes? It could go on for quite some time. 79.75.95.135 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If it gets to that point, we'll just sticky it. We've done that before with protracted wars and conflicts that stay in the news for some time. --Jayron32 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Hence my suggestion above. We don't want day-in, day-out "bump the blurb" nominations. If a sticky is needed, let's discuss it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the update and bump, a city being taken by rebels is a bigger story than a failed coup. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• No more, please....!! this has become commonplace to the point of needing a sticker, and it doesn't seem to be prominently covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Gaia (spacecraft)

Nominator's comments: Notable space launch, IMO. The article is good, the update says the launch was successful which is more or less all what can be said at this point. --Tone 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Highly notable science news. --bender235 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, notable objective. Brandmeister^talk 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Major astronomy and spaceflight news, and a good article too. Modest Genius ^talk 14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Thue (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 18

---

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Harold Camping

[Posted] New tapir

Nominator's comments: Reported to be the first tapir discovered since 1865 and the first Perissodactyla animal discovered in over 100 years. Btw, we posted olingito last time. Brandmeister^talk 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added "in the Amazon" to the blurb, assume there will be no objection. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support discovery of new large mammals is quite rare, shame we don't have a free image. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support new mammal found. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support I find it interesting that such large animals can still be found. Certainly important enough to post. SeraV (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support It's a Tapir, better than a Scarab Beetle (wait - I supported that one too! Damn). --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Marked ready, added altblurb to note rarity of find. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. According to the article the first specimen of this species was discovered in 1914, and was suggested back then as a separate species. At very least, the blurb wording needs to reflect this. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there were reports of gorillas before western science identified them. That is implicit in every species discovery. If it matters, the word discovered can be changed to identified. They amount to the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a new species discovered/identified in the Amazon recently. It appears to have been known to western scientists as a possible distinct species ~100 years ago. Espresso Addict(talk) 05:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rumors and speculations are not quite same as scientific description, for all intends and purposes this is new species now identified. SeraV (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posting. I'll go with identified instead of discovered, the reasoning above makes sense. --Tone 09:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

post-oppose hijacking "my" ITN ;(Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Given there's no nominater listed, you could always add yourself as the post-posting nominator. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That tapir couldn't wait any longer, has reportedly been known to local population before :) Brandmeister^talk 15:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

US arrest/strip search of Indian consular officer

Nominator's comments: This seems to be developing into a diplomatic row; receiving wide coverage. Top story on BBC, other outlets. Will update later today. --331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment most certainly not top story on BBC, not even on BBC News for Asia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was when I saw it, that's all I know. Still being displayed at the top story at this moment: [27] 331dot (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Presumably you're viewing a local version of the BBC homepage dedicated to your location. It was never even on the BBC News homepage in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I understand that- but I can only state what I am able to see. It was the top story in other outlets(CNN, NBC) for a little bit, and near the top if not the top in Indian outlets. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed article target to a stupid one deemed encyclopaedically notable because it is int eh news (duh!).

Thanks; I didn't realize it had been created. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose its a diplomatic spat with no repercussions. If there were declarations of persona non grata for ambassadors etc then id support. Mind you the arrival of Ahmedenijad to Lebaonon (with that dodgy border there) was not deemed ITN-worthyLihaas (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I get that the strip-search has been commented on in the media, but I don't think we need it in the blurb. It almost feels like it could have "click for pictures!" in brackets after it. Overall, I'd say wait to see how/if the story develops. I think this is mainly in the news on account of what could happen rather than what has. Formerip (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• The strip-search seems to be the main issue India is having(along with her being placed in the general population of the jail) but I don't necessarily object to removing it. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support India really isn't happy about this. India has been threatening USA with reprisals which makes this quite serious incident. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

India isnt happy? Lots of nom's indicate non-hapiness.

Anyhoo, threats are just talk. As precedence here as indicated, when the talk is put to action, when the rubber meets the road, when push comes to shove then we post.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the blurb should mention the arrest and the reprisals. This was a deliberate act by the US, and rather pointed, as the administration permitted this arrest on irregular documents but is otherwise freeing illegals and advocating free border crossing, amnesty, in-state tuition, and driver's licenses for illegals, etc. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

She's a diplomat, so I think the irregular documents in question are not hers. Formerip (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

She's a consul employee with consular privilege only when she is on consular business. She is accused of having falsified documents regarding an employee brought with her. The arrest would be standard, and the strip search given she was in a local jail. But the arrest was okayed by the Obama administration, which seems an odd priority, given the administration's stand on related issues. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose storm in a teacup. After all, we recently had Spain opening up diplomatic material from the UK coming from Gibraltar. Same shit, different day. Nothing will come of any of it, besides diplomatic apologies in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Opening up diplomatic bags is very different than personally violating another nation's diplomatic officials- namely due to the former not being reported to the same level as this, if at all. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this really in the news? I see the link from Lihaas below mentions "hundreds of protestors" across all of India. Big deal. Hundreds of protestors protest about hundreds of things in hundreds of countries every day. Besides Al Jazeera promoting a "conspiracy theory", is there any substance to any further action other than "oops, sorry"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tha Al Jaz story seems like absolutely nothing. Basically, rather than throwing the nanny out of the country and losing their witness, the authorities have given her a special type of "witness visa" designed for exactly this sort of situation. Oh, and they didn't dismiss the case when India asked them to. Which, apparently, means there's a conspiracy. Listen carefully and you'll hear the sound of a story fizzling out. Formerip (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

support well, well, well...its now a parliamentary issue with more illegal dealings by the GOVERNMENT and hocus-pocus thee. There will be hell to pay, it seems.

Also marked ready. (Damn! my 5/6 blurbs are going...)Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose If this really is going to be an international incident, let's actually wait until there's a strong sign of that (eg (hypothetical): if the Indian consulate closes its US office in response, or the US formally charges the person with any crimes). At the present state it is not ITN-worthy news as there is no strong evidence of long-term effects (it fails NEVENT). A snafu and one with some political ramifications, sure, but at the present time, a year from now, it will be just a blip and forgotten from the way the story is going. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far:

• The diplomat involved has been charged.
• The Indian government have moved her to a post with full diplomatic immunity.
• The Indian government has removed some security protection from the US embassy.

There is a LOT of noise about this in the media just now - ie it is ITN. Any of that change your mind? GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. This is a storm in a teacup, as I said already. There's nothing in major news outlets, even Al Jazeera has had to resort to "conspiracy theories". No big deal, time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - for an encyclopedia, this is noise, so far. I won't say that it will never be more notable but the trends are all towards a blip in diplomatic relations that we shouldn't be covering (Wikinews, on the other hand...). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting you say that, then why do tinpot stories of x dies in bus/boat/plane accident get posted on ITN? Wha tis that big deal then?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You people are free to have your opinions about this but claiming that there is nothing in major news outlets about this is just false, [28][29], [30], [31], [32]SeraV (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but many things are buried in the news that have little or no impact on anything or anyone outside the story itself. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So you havent asked/answered then as to why those accidents are important with an impact and a legacy (as i keep saying, they ought not to be articles even)Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes yes mr rambling but perhaps you should read news bit more throroughly before you start claiming nonsense in here. You know for future reference so I can take your claims seriously. SeraV (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense? This is a minor story, barely noticed across the globe, a handful of protestors in a country of over a billion people indicates they're not bothered, this is a dead parrot of a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and it is fair enough, I wasn't questioning that. I was referring to your claim that there is nothing in major newsoutlets about this particular story, and you dismissing my point with a snide remark wasn't particularly welcome either. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You start a comment with "You people... " and expect respect? Not from where I'm from. Either way, it's irrelevant. This is a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well theres are global media links that highlight it (even in uninvolved countries), so its hardly a @non stoy@snide remark Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again you make little sense. Shame is I'm sure you have something intelligent to say.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We actually do block several minor accident stories, such as that recent New York commuter train issue, and I'm blanking on it but even when there's just one or two deaths we don't post the story. So we are careful, and not every one of these gets posted. This is the same this as a non-fatal accident. Widely covered but short-lived. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose at this moment. She was reportedly released on bond, so far no indication she'll be Helen of Troy (although she may have similar beauty). However, if she was strip-searched in the consul office, the US actions may consitute an invasion on Indian soil, as far as I know. Brandmeister^talk 16:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reaction by India included digging up and tearing down the protection barrier built after 9/11 and revoking the embassy's passes. The agent was stripped searched as part of normal processing during her arrest. That the upset is mainly about the strip search and not the arrest itself is interesting. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Female Body Inspectors? :) Brandmeister^talk 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose the news is significant only in India (probably because 'may our diplomat always be in the right; but right or wrong, our diplomat' mixed with outrage over intrusive body searches) also the spat seems to be dying down (checked the current Indian English news tv cycle ndtv, times now, ibn (they are the Indian equivalent of cbs, fox and cnn respectively) - the diplomatic tussle news seems to be 3rd or 4th place, in US it is just a low variety news). So oppose on the basis of insignificant coverage outside India. However professionally I find the legal knots on consular immunity in private contracts very interesting (with added whiffs of conspiracy, entrapment and diplomatic retaliation). LegalEagle (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Ronnie Biggs

Nominator comment. A loveable rogue, or a leading notable member of a gang who commited a violent and notorious robbery. Divided opinions in the UK and abroad. Article updated to reflect death and is in okay shape (no tags). Great Train Robbery article also pretty decent (and likely to be visitor's second click). Front page news on BBC. Proposing for RD only. Pedro : Chat 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Iconic and controversial figure, famous not just in Britain but also internationally. Notorious not only for the Great Train Robbery, but also for escaping from prison and living in Brazil as a fugitive for 36 years before voluntarily returning to Britain and being imprisoned. Remained in the news in recent times with debate over whether he should be granted compassionate release on health grounds (he eventually was, after earlier requests were rejected). Neljack (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, when artists, scientists, composers and other figures of lasting worth are regularly rejected from RD, I don't feel this thief was the sort of figure "worthy" of an RD blurb. Much as the BBC and other outlets are giving his death front page news, I don't think we should. He was an old man whose death had been expected for years and whose incompetence even in the event he was most famous for led to its most controversial aspect. Bob talk 09:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that there isn't really such a thing as a "RD blurb". I'm proposing for RD ticker only, not a blurb. Pedro : Chat 09:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, my point is that we should not be giving this criminal any more publicity than he deserves - just because all the newspapers are headlining with it, I don't see why we should. Bobtalk 11:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You answered your own question- because it is in the news and this is "in the news". We do not make judgements about what is good and bad. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - he was only a "second class tea-boy". Not worthy of space on main page. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. Whatever you think of what he did with his life, his death is undoubtedly in the news as he was an iconic, controversial figure in the UK and Brazil at least. His death has been expected for years, but that is irrelevant as RD's purpose is exactly for deaths that are in the news but not noteworthy other than for having happened. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Important in his field. The fact that it was crime is irrelevant; we don't just post people who did good things. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD His name and the Great Train Robbery has become famous even now 50 years on. Documentaries have been made about him, his life in exile and the robbery itself. I think it's perfect for RD. CaptRik (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD, as demonstrated by the various international sources, Biggs was clearly notorious across the globe, his death is certainly in the major news outlets, and for just a handful of characters on the main page, just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. (.. looking forward to "Biggsy" already?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Biggs's involvement in the robbery was seemingly very minor and any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice. I cannot see how Biggs meets the required criterion ('widely regarded as a very important figure in his field'). During the BBC News at 11:00, Biggs was only mentioned after reports on a fall in the British unemployment rate and proposed changes in benefits for migrants from the European Union, which suggests he is not as notable as implied above. 86.158.217.251 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re "any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice"; it is certainly notable in the field of crime that someone managed to do that, even if he was not the ringleader of the group in this infamous robbery. Re placement in the BBC broadcast, we consider more than just that(such as worldwide coverage, which this has), though the fact that he made it at all would suggest he is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• He's currently top of GoogleNews, and second at BBC News (ironically, just above plastic banknotes). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - He wasn't a leading member of the gang, merely a long-term fugitive. He died of old age. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Died of old age isn't grounds for opposition I'm afraid. Take a look at the RDs currently showing on the main page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When did Ronnie Biggs receive an Oscar? Or anything else he'd earned except a long-overdue jailing? The man was a petty criminal who played a small part in a large and violent event. By 'died of old age' I mean that there is nothing sudden or unusual about his death to add to its noteworthiness. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

O'Toole didn't receive a real Oscar either. And yes, you weren't clear, but thanks for clearing it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As was pointed out though, O'Toole did win the Academy Honorary Award, which is a sort of lifetime achievement. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Opposes pointing out that he was common-or-garden crook and not the brains behind the robbery totally miss the point. His notability isn't primarily as a thief but as a fugitive. In that field, it's probably fair to say that he was pretty successful and one of the most famous there's ever been. Formerip (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

'Famous' is not a criterion. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Best known for being a part of a well-known robbery? That doesn't make him top of his field. As to FormerIP's comment above me, I don't think "being a fugitive" is a field. Besides, it says he went to Brazil, which didn't have an extradition treaty with Britain. So we're not talking about some skilled evasion of the law. He moved to a country that wouldn't extradite him. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

But what he did is pretty much unique in history. AFAICT, only a tiny number of people have escaped from a British prison and not been recaptured, and the others were all members of either the IRA or the KGB (i.e. they had considerable help). Formerip (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

But he was recaptured, which renders this argument invalid. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support It's Ronnie Biggs, for Christ sake. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the name at the top of the entry. What is your point? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think his point is that this man is notable enough to be posted, which is also indicated by the worldwide coverage of his death. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted Thue (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If this was posted so quickly, how come the READY german article is not posteD?!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • I would very much like to post the German article, but I "voted" on it and therefore have a conflict of interest. Thue (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • As someone who opposed posting it, I am willing to see you post it rather than have it languish in this instance. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, in fact postingit when you voted against it is al the more to your neutrality.Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Post posting Oppose per Bob, i find it really odd indeed that we don't post certain musicians and such if they don't have enough exposure in main newsoutlets or if their pages aren't perfect, yet we think some thief is worthy of posting in our main page. I really don't think he meets any of our criteria either. SeraV (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• He meets #2(important in his field, crime/being a fugitive).331dot (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'Important in his field' is a contention entirely unsupported by the facts. If his field (robbery) is considered to merit measurement of importance, then breaking into a pharmacy, stealing a car, a bungled bookie's break-in and failure to recruit a competent train driver is small beer. He was very much a foot-soldier in the notorious train robbery. Attempts to retrieve him from flight to countries with no extradition treaties gained him some tabloid/'and finally' notoriety, but he scores zero for importance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

December 17

---

[Posted] The Ashes

--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• As this is ITN/R it will be posted, and I take it that the final tests conclusion will not be? If so, good.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NO, wait till; the series concludes to have teh final result. + the prose ont eh page is ORLihaas (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, the Aussies have won, and they WANT to rub it in the Brits faces ASAP. :PPP --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Only the English (and perhaps Welsh), the Scots are probably enjoying this too... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support posting now What everybody cares about is who wins the Ashes, and that's what has just been decided. Sure England will be trying to save face in the last two tests, while Australia will be going for a clean sweep, but ultimately this is a dead rubber now. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is big news NOW. The final result of the series will definitely be lesser news. It's ITN/R, this is the big news from the series, so it should be posted now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Aus trashed Eng and deservedly won the Ashes with two Tests to spare. There's no news in waiting for the final two Tests whatsoever. The news is that Australia regain the Ashes (although never the urn, hahahahaha). Post immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • TRM's pearls of wisdom bring tears to many overly patriotic Brits eyes...so yes, post now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Let's take a look at 2013–14 Ashes series... The lede doesn't even mention that Australia have won, and the three match reports contain not one reference between them. Stephen 23:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. (And is that a Support post?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's comment from an admin who would have posted it if it was in better shape. If it was a support, it would say 'Support' wouldn't it? Stephen 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the lead now contains the relevant information, but those match descriptions ARE a worry. An incredibly poor effort by the editors involved. I'll see what I can do. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a basic reference to all match reports. CaptRik (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marked as Ready, much improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Did you see the abuse I copped, and am still copping, for firmly suggesting that writing that much content with no sourcing at all was simply not good enough? LOL) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm open to suggestions on the blurb but it seems to be that regaining the Ashes is the storyline, and that has happened. The 3-0 series score seems unnecessary to mention for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Would like to see a few more references in the article before posting. I'll see what I can do to add some more. Spencer^T♦C 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 21:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] German chancellor Merkel, ministers inaugurated

An Admin, an Admin! My Kingdom for an Admin! --consensus was for this to be posted as of inauguration time, Germany, a day and a half ago now. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ready se nomination below to which this was merged: "German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term" [33] [Credit Sca] 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting admin: please note that the blurb below is posted when you do post itLihaas (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted as part of the blurb from below. Stephen 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 16

---

[Posted] Failed coup in South Sudan

Nominator's comments: According to the analysis of the BBC, this is a "critical point" for South Sudan which is "facing its greatest challenge since becoming independent".[34] Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn! did you take it from my page? ;) I intended to create an article for this when I had time. Though I would add it should be called a failed mutiny rather than a coup as the latter is a much harsher word with repercussions. Not sure what repercussions this would have (okey there is the strong/key ethnic element). Anyhoo, rant over...article title? Perhaps 2013 South Sudanese mutiny attempt or 2013 SOuth Sudanese coup d'etat attempt (As in the the page for the Eritrean one)

btw support as a nitable incident and the first in the country setting possible pace for its future politics.

Further one could also add the element of the dismissal of Reik Machar earlier in the eyar that i nominated here for cabinet reshuffle but wasnt posted

Started 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attemptLihaas (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support A significant development is a new country that is still in a rather tense region. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd support this, but the article needs copyediting before we can post it. Formerip (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose on BLP grounds. A failed coup attested only by the government? Isn't that what Jang Sung-taek was accused of? The sources cannot be trusted. Abductive (reasoning) 00:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually gunshots and explosive were reported by the media before Salva Kiir's announcement. I can't see how BLP is a concern here when we are following reliable sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I withdraw my oppose, there seem to be hundreds dead. Abductive (reasoning) 03:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per Neljack. This might be the beginning of a possible major development in the region. The article is in a very good shape too. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 11:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Put up as "South Sudan announces putting down a coup d'état attempt following overnight clashes in Juba." [Soffredo] 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fighting still ongoing, I rworded the blurb and marked readuyLihaas (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If this attempt was a failure, how does it qualify as a "significant development"? And I don't think it should be posted on the basis that it "might be the beginning of a possible major development"; get back to me when the result is a major development. 212.139.250.209 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  This is a significant development. At least 66 are reported killed so far and 16,000 have fled their homes. This is the current situation in Juba (the capital): The airport has been closed, a night curfew has been imposed and gunfire is being heard, including from heavy weapons. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support an attempted coup in the US would have been posted before we even had an article. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I support this, but a coup(or even an attempted coup) in the US would be an entirely different animal than a coup in a country barely two years old and lacking nuclear weapons, a significant military, and large population. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If the word "coup" is a problem we could use a different word, but there clearly was violence against the government causing a significant disruption in that nation. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per medeis reasoning. and the fact that it is a notable political event.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 04:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 15

---

[Posted to RD] Joan Fontaine

Nominator's comments: Blurb optional; RD most certainly. — Wyliepedia 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Came here to nominate this myself. Jón - (Wanna talk?) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but not blurb; oscar winner but not in many top actress lists. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. – Connormah (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD, when referencing improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. The article has few ^{[citation needed]} tags and few unreferenced paragraphs. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. She is notable. Egeymi (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Pile on support for RD per Medeis and Mohamed. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 12:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Peter O'Toole

Nominator's comments: Personally I believe a blurb is warranted, but certainly RD at the minimum. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support for RD, when the orange tag is addressed. --Tone 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Was coming here to nominate this myself. Seems like a no-brainer to me. A much loved and respected actor, who was the most-nominated actor never to win an Academy Award outright. - JuneGloom Talk 18:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. Important in his field, but not to the level of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD per 331dot. The sourcing issues need fixing first though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Many sources are using the words "film legend", and he had a pretty acclaimed career (the IMDB says he was "Nominated for 8 Oscars. Another 33 wins & 29 nominations.") Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb - Yes, he is a legend. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Support immediate RD. The orange refimprove notice dates to February 2012 and is mostly moot at this point (see February 2012 referencing & article-state), except for the Personal life section. Will start clean-up and see if I can find referencing for at least some of those one-line mentions. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Eight-time Academy Award nominee, but zero time Academy Award winner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to fight too hard on the blurb, but the Academy gave him a rare Honorary award in 2003 because of his number of nominations but always missing the win due to another stellar performance by another actor that year; he remains the most-nominated actor for the Oscars. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but that's why I see him as worthy of RD. For a blurb, he falls short of the "Thatcher/Mandela" threshold as I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb, also support quick RD posting too, a nice idea to post RDs as long as they meet the min update criteria and then push to blurb maybe a few hours later once more serious editorial concerns have been addressed. O'Toole was a legend, an actor of extreme notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To the people that think he is not up to the level of a blurb; which actor would you support for one? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone who had won 8 Academy Awards instead of just being nominated, to start. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Cary Grant never won an Oscar. Charlie Chaplin never won an Oscar. Marilyn Monroe never won an Oscar. James Dean never won an Oscar. 91.125.222.105 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about Hitchcock, Grant, Chaplin, or Monroe. Many of them won many awards or had other recognition(Hitchcock got A KBE) 331dot (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and O'Toole was offered a knighthood in 1987, but turned it down. He also received many other awards. The point is that Oscars are not the be all and end all of notability. 91.125.222.105 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Really? It's pretty obvious that O'Toole won many awards. IMDB reports 33. Also, he turned down a knighthood offer in the 80s. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No one said they were the be all end all- but not winning the top award in his field even once is a factor. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Time to stop digging yourself further 331dot! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blurb? I am a huge fan of O'Toole's (who isn't) so a blurb won't bother me in the least, but this is not an unexpected death, and "dies of old age" is really meant just for RD. Will have to watch Lion in Winter tonite. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not wishing to draw an immediate parallel, but there has been a recent posting of "died of old age" that received a full blurb. So "died of old age" isn't really a means to reject a blurb it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of the discussion for RD was that it saved space on blurbs when the mode of death itself wasn't notable. That being said, there is tension with the person's importance, which is a reason for the full blurb. After reading [http://www.imdb.com/list/nIPBezOA5RQ/ this list, I think he does make the cut, so I

• Support full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support RD ticket. Not a blurb, what is the point of a blurb that says he died of old age? Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)oppose blurb relation to "who else would be posted" is irrelevant. Other blurb supports indicate ILIKEIT. His legend status id dubious objectively. LOA was the lone lead. That said RD is pretty obvious and per Abductive, that needs extraordinary circumstancesLihaas (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• OK, here are three sources that call him a "screen/film/acting legend" [35] [36] [37] And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support RD - I won't weep if this goes to full blurb, but comparing O'Toole's death to Mandela's (apples and oranges in any case) doesn't work. Mandela was an international icon and triumphed over injustice and persecution to change a nation's racial policies. O'Toole was an actor, one with a quite distinguished career, but not at the same level of global importance. Jusdafax 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Who compared him to Mandela? There was a suggestion that "dies of old age" precludes a blurb, but that clearly isn't true. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb, one of the all-time great actors. Secret ^account 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support, and would not oppose a blurb. A significant figure in British cinema. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• The comparison to be made is among actors, of whom O'Toole (Becket, Lion in Winter, Lawrence of Arabia, 8 Oscar nominations) was near the top of those still alive. His competitors are who? Connery, Hopkins, DeNiro, Pacino, Hackman, Nicholson, Duvall, Redford, Hurt, Caine, Neeson, Irons, Pitt, DiCaprio, Clooney. O'Toole sits easily at the top of that list. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose blurp. The RD spot is sufficient: This is exactly what it's for, notifying the reader of the death of a highly significant person. Medeis, one can indeed take the Mandela case as an example: Mandela's death and its aftermath was extensively covered in all kinds of media, which upon the announcement often jumped in what I would call "expanded breaking news mode": Special features, program changes, studio experts etc. to rewind Mandela's life and achievements. A whole bunch of world leaders convened at Mandela's memorial service, and South Africa had ten days of state mourning. This is why in that case a blurp was justified. Obviously, O'Toole plays in a different league.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb. It's pretty obvious there's a consensus for RD, and I can imagine no serious objection, so I've gone ahead and posted it there. Debate is still open on the blurb, but one of the world's greatest actors seems an obvious one there as well. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb A very important actor, but didn't quite have the level of international impact I'd require for a blurb (few actors would). Neljack (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've just added a note in the title that the item has been posted. I'm not happy with the orange tags in the article, nevertheless. --Tone 20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of 20 votes I count six opposed to a blurb, from 7-9 in support of a blurb (depending on how you count), and the rest unopposed to a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I count 11 (10 at the time you posted) in favour of RD, 8 in favour of a blurb, and two neutral or unclear. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Will you two PLEASE stop counting votes. We're not supposed to do that here. It's the quality of argument alone that counts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Vote counting is perfectly appropriate for whether something goes up as RD or Blurb. Of course support votes should not be counted as opposing a blurb unles they say oppose blurb--you'll have to bring that up with someone besides me, though. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. If someone cannot come up with a decent reason for their opinion, it doesn't count for anything here, no matter what the purpose is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So which vote above are you saying is rubbish, so we can fix the count? In case you haven't been told this recently, HiLO, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore HiLo. He's stirring the pot as per usual. The consensus should be for RD. The support for a blurb should be near-universal to get posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm nio. Ignore the rest. hes perfectly right in saying tht we dont vote count and use the quality of agruments. He said nothing about RD/Blurb.Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lihaas (again, this is odd...?!) Well that's an interesting take on things. RD has already been posted, so that's irrelevant. Where is this "near-universal" support required for a blurb? Surely it's down to admins to gauge comments on their merits rather than simply count pluses and minuses? Or did I miss that bit at admin school? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, unless you think HiLo just goes around saying "that's rubbish" without referring to anything at all, or unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time, it's obvious he's responding to the three statements above him which were counting votes for and against a blurb. Upgrading to a full blurb is always possible. This was all discussed at length in the RfC that established RD in the first place, and bfore RD both these actors recently passed would have gotten full blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Medeis, and be careful not to be patronising to others ('unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time'). This is not obvious: 'Ignore HiLo' does mean to ignore HiLo, which is how Lihaas interpreted it. I believe WaltCip intended to write 'Ignore, HiLo', which, on the other hand, is unambiguous and correct. 86.158.217.251 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support RD, but agree it shouldn't have been done with an unresolved orange tag. I think there are only a handful of people in history whose acting careers would merit a blurb, and they are all dead. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chile election

Nominator's comments: Was nominated last time but it went to a 2nd round. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The article is not updated, otherwise, this is ITNR. Also, it's about time we change the picture in the box since Mandela is currently the last item. --Tone 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting is probs still going on

btw- Bangla dude has a pic on his page.(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)).

I have updated the article with partial results. It's pretty clear now Bachelet is the President-elect of Chile. Support this item. Btw, use this pic to illustrate: File:Michelle Bachelet foto campaña.jpg. Evelyn Matthei has just acknowledged her defeat. Küñall (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The article seems ready to go, may some admin please post it? :-P --Küñall (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I am missing some decent prose update, at the moment it's just the table. Then, ready to post. --Tone 08:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Its been updated with prose and results and as ITNR it is good to go.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 23:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!, damn chinese and damn new species! ;)(Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 14

---

[Posted] German government

Nominator's comments: Not sure if we posted the election and under what terms the blurb went up, but the agreement of a grand coalition is important + we posted aus/can/uk more than once. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait until it happens. --W. D. Graham 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated on the ITNR page, we generally do not post inaugurations or swearings-in. We already posted the election and debated posting the coalition agreement. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 331dot. We already posted the results from the election, so there is no reason to post the constitution of the new government coalition. Some may argue that the country has never seen more dramatic post-election period which ended in a coalition between the two "political rivals", but the political climate during this period did not receive much popularity in the media and was not followed with unpleasant events to consider this an end of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So why do the anglo countries get a pass in mul;tiple mentions (Aus went up thrice)...flagrnt systemic bias?Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't witnessed that news related to one single election have been posted in multiple blurbs, but I'd oppose as well any news related to a peaceful constitution of a coalition following election that was already mentioned on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If no appelz and orangez going on then I see no problem with this going up...taking into consideration your points Lihaas...*hic* Somchai Sun (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

We're speaken here nein Deutsch, (i.e., Not zee Tscherman!)L)ihaas, uND Somchai. Pleasen to speaken yust dee Englsky wit dee porper splngk and ! punkshnuation...^)? Medeis

• Comment I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". Iselilja (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To expand on my comment. I still think the article in question needs updating and improvement. More about the agreement and we should also include a list of new cabinet members. Also, the article isn't linked to in the current blurb. Maybe start a new article about the new cabinet? Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support — On Nov. 27, when negotiations between the SPD and Merkel's CDU/CSU ended with leadership agreement to form a "grand coalition," I and several others argued strongly in favor of posting, but were told by skeptics to wait until it happens — i.e., until the SPD membership approved the agreement. Well, IT'S HAPPENED , [38] boys & girls, and it's high time for the results of the Sept. 22 election to be posted in ITN, sofort, unverzüglich! (With apologies to Günter Schabowski.) Sca (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the election and the coalition are two separate news items, one of the quirks of the multiparty "system". μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is not an inauguration, it is the formation of a government - quite a different thing. The results of the election were known, but not who would govern the country - which is surely the most important thing. Let my give an analogy for Americans who may not be used to parliamentary systems: imagine if the the US Presidential election resulted in a tie in the electoral college. We would surely (and rightly) post that. But would anyone seriously argue that we should not post the election by the House of Representatives of the new President. Well, this is like that: the election has not produced a clear result and then the legislature is choosing the government (through parties with a majority in it negotiating an agreement to form a government). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support to post when the date comes. The formation of a new government is significant here. --Jayron32 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I thought the government had already been formed, and the votes in the parties were just making it official. (Someone as a party leader doesn't agree to those sorts of things unless they already think their party will accept them.) The blurb seems to focus more on the beginning of the government itself(essentially an inauguration); if the formalization and acceptance of the coalition agreement is what's notable, then the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, the vote to form the government happened on December 14, when this was nominated. --Jayron32 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A first — Merkel to name Ursula von der Leyen as Germany's first woman defense minister. [39]Sca (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the first female defense minister needs to be mentioned in the blurb, but it should be in the updated article; along with named of the other members of the new cabinet. (We might well hold this post off to 17 Dec) Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well no the government had not been formed, because the SPD's agreement was conditional on it being approved by the party membership. No doubt the leadership were confident of getting approval, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion - the rank and file are often more radical than the leadership. Neljack (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is more support above and an article at Third Merkel cabinet. Plus its ITNR so no qualms posting asapLihaas (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the convoluted path of this discussion. It seems the topic now is represented by Third Merkel cabinet, and the discussion above is closed with just three comments. Do I understand correctly that this means it will be posted Dec. 17? Sca (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Its ITNR so the election has to be posted, but regardless its got support and an update. The only issue seems to be when to post and I think 12:30 tomorrow (that is in 19 hours) itll be good to go.Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the party chiefs — Merkel (CDU), Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) and Horst Seehofer (CSU) — signed a formal, 185-page "grand coalition" agreement on Monday, Dec. 16, in Berlin. [40]. Why wait? Sca (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the new government has not taken office yet. Let's wait until tomorrow afternoon, when Angela Merkel will be re-elected and the members of her new cabinet will have been formally appointed. In order to determine the moment when to post at the earliest, one would need to watch the news. By the way, there is an article about the Third Merkel cabinet, which might be displayed at the blurp rather than the one about the election.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We post the results of election without them being sworn in...Also even if the election article is not bolded I think it's imperative to have it in there as we did'nt post the result (we could have 2 bolded articles).Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Lihaas, the result of the election was posted, on 24 September. Therefore, I'd think that if indeed consensus would be to post the formation of the new government, Third Merkel cabinet should be the bolded article.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting contradictory messages here...Per th ebaove noto posted...although ITNTALK seems to show that it wasLihaas (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term" [41] [42] — Not news yet? Agreement to form a new "grand coalition" government was reached nearly a month ago. The ex-journalist in me is appalled (if amused) at how long it's taken to get this noteworthy event into doughty old ITN. (Could there possibly be an anti-German bias lurking somewhere on English Wikipedia?) Sca (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's highly doubtful there is any bias. There seem to be a very limited number of admins watching this page, so attention is often irregular and lacking. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's wait 'til Mrs. Merkel retires from politics someday, then run an ITN blurb about how she was chancellor for a third term. ZZZzzz. Sca (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have 4 out of six blurbs! Woo hoo! Vision indeed...!!!

Knock of Chile with Uruguay and Ill havge nearly all!Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chang'e 3 lands

Nominator's comments: Hugely notable, ITNR, there was also a consensus to post twice when we discussed posting the launch. --W. D. Graham 13:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - First landing on the moon in nearly 4 decades is notable in my book. Clearly of international interest. Jusdafax 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Was coming to nominate myself. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Incredibly historic event—WP should certainly have it on the homepage!Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Needs some updates, then ready to post (we've already reached a consensus about it when the mission launched). --Tone 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - first moon landing for a looooong time.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, consensus seems to be that a major space first for a country is ITN-worthy. Can it wait until the Jade Rabbit actually rolls onto the surface in a couple hours? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Historic event. CaptRik (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marked Ready both articles are updated, and support is overwhelming. No reason to wait for further developments, since readers are looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

update is there, but BOTH articles have the same thing. Let's debold ONE of them and merge teh section to the bolded article.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to hold a merger discussion, but I beg to disagree; Yutu is about the rover specifically, while Chang'e 3 is the mission as a whole and the base station - compare the precedent with Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity (rover). They are similar at the moment because the rover has not yet detatched from the rest of the probe, this is expected to happen in the next few hours. --W. D. Graham 20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with WDGrahm and support posting blurb as is now. Jusdafax 20:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posting.--Tone 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• List of missions to the Moon doesn't have the 1976 entry. Could we swap the "land on the Moon" link to simply Moon landing or List of lunar probes? Brandmeister^talk 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's in there. Give me five minutes and I'll clarify it. --W. D. Graham 21:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Fixed. I've added a detailed description of the last mission and corrected a typo in its launch date - it had been incorrectly listed as occurring in 1975. --W. D. Graham 22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

First noble gas molecule discovered in space

Nominator's comments: I was not sure what exactly to name the new article which is why I did not create one. If anyone has a good idea for a title for the new article, please feel free to create the article with a good title. Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Q. What longstanding principle of physics was overturned by this discovery? A. None. Q. Was there a hypothesis that led the discoverers to look for noble gas molecules in supernova remnants? A. No, there were some odd emission lines, and they came up with candidate molecules to explain them. Q. What lasting impact will this have on astronomy? A. None given by the sources, and likely none whatsoever. Don't believe the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abductive. Neljack (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because this doesn't seem to be getting coverage in mainstream media(just science outlets). If it did, I would support as molecules with noble elements have not been seen outside of a laboratory, and certainly not in space up til now. People are certainly entitled to believe something like this is not important or just "hype", or that we should only post earth-shattering discoveries covered in the media, but that doesn't change the fact this hasn't been seen before. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm seeing this in enough other news sources to now support this. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a very interesting scientific first. And if we seriously need to violate a law of physics to qualify for ITN now (I can just see the headlines--CNN: "Wikipedia Bans News that Doesn't Violate Laws of Nature")--we can just shut down ITN and go home. μηδείς (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to see a link to the 'Noble gas' article. Tempted to support this but the blurb needs tweaking. The other issues, like a new article, complicate this one a bit. Abductive's objections are noted but this is a somewhat interesting "first" in my view. Jusdafax 12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a story of interest to me personally , but I really don't feel it's a big enough story for the front page. CaptRik (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• DYK I think the opposition is wrong, but this would not be a bad item for WP:DYK. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are bigger scientific news stories out there than this. Thue (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Such as? 331dot (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• [43] and [44] for example, from a quick troll of science.com and nature.com . Thue (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I await their nomination to consider their merits; but that says little about this story, which seems to be getting much wider coverage than those. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• News media are generally amateurs wrt science. The nominated article is clearly not very important science, no matter how widely covered. Thue (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is "In the news", not a science journal. We deal in what is widely covered. 331dot (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support*, for reasons opposite to the opening comment, eg. Q. What longstanding principle of chemistry was overturned by this discovery? A. The long, LONG, LONG standing belief that noble gases do not and cannot form chemical compounds with other elements, due to their full outer shells (of electrons). As with all responsible breaking science, the wording of the article is cautious and of course awaits supporting evidence from others. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not what the Noble gas compound article says. No, us humans have made all these molecules in the lab. Not only that, but that article cites a 1968 source that says that noble gas compounds have been detected by spectroscopic means. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 13

---

December 12

---

[Posted]: Jang Song-thaek

Nominator's comments: That North Korean dude who was dismissed (the uncle of the Dear Leader, or whatever hes called) was executed shortly after the dismissal. Pretty high ranking dude to be executed in a short time.S ome strange stuff going on there. I think its notable for RD for sure, possibly a full blurb.
Please indicate if support is for blurb or RD Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support blurb - notable enough for inclusion. And quite interesting/funny that a man who has helped to create this system falls victim too it himself.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb The execution of the second-most powerful men in the country. Thue (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support RD Seems to fall under WP:ITND#1, and it's definitely in the news, but in the end he was "just" the vice-chairman National Defence Commission. Speculations that this was actually "the second in command" position within the Pyongyang government are, well, speculations. Promotion to blurb would require clearer evidence of the person's significance (i.e. I oppose blurb). --hydrox (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) ed: After reading WFC's comment below, I no longer oppose posting the blurb.
• Support blurb I suspect the RD will get lost as "never heard of him". A significant and chilling move from the leader of the universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb I think it's one major development for North Korean issues and shows the insanity of their leader. It must be shown. Japanesehelper (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Speculation that, contrary to all the evidence, he was some sort of minor dogsbody is, well, speculation. Very clearly a singularly important figure within the NK administration and an extremely dramatic and newsworthy death. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I added a blurb. I'm not sure that the "Toryism" template on the "Counter-revolutionary" article is quite right for the front page, though. Formerip (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a "minor dogsbody" of course, but there are also other figures in Pyongyang ousiders deem "important" in addition to Kim and the now executed Jang. Article on O Kuk-ryol, who co-held the same position as the late Jang, also cites sources naming him second in power from the Supreme Leader, while Kim Yong-chun, who too co-held Jang's position, is obviously not a nobody either. Meanwhile, the "official" version would be that Kim Yong-nam holds a nominally superior position to any of these other figures, but outsider sources actually consider him less of a "big player". Do all them also warrant a blurb if executed? --hydrox (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • My guess would be quite possibly. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well they wouldn't be the first. Kim has been executed before ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support blurb. The execution of such a highly-ranked person in NK is notable enough to be a blurb. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Marked Ready updated [45] and supported for full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support blurb only (oppose RD) – very surprising turn of events in the context of a family dynasty, doubly so given how influential Sung-taek was in the transition from Kim Jong-il's reign to cementing Kim Jong-un's. On my opposition to RD, surely a prerequisite for posting under RD is that the person meets the standard death criteria? This person would have no serious prospect of being posted had he had a heart attack a fortnight ago. Under my reading rules that out criteria 1 and 2, as previous notability is independent from current circumstances. To argue #3 you would need to demonstrate that this has changed the national or international status quo. Consensus to post trumps those criteria, but if it is not obvious why someone is being posted, a blurb is absolutely necessary to explain the context of the posting. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Side comment Shouldn't the posted name reflect the current article title? Redirects are cheap, but they're not free, and this would be high-traffic. Are there ENGVAR issues that I'm not aware of? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair point on explaining context to readers. --hydrox (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have a comment about the blurb: rather than presenting the news as an absolute fact, it might be better to explicitly attribute the execution announcement to North Korean media or something, as many of the news sources seem to be doing. Just because North Korea says something happened doesn't mean it actually happened: last year, the very same news agency reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. I would guess that it's probable that he has been executed, but it's at least possible that he has not. I'm not at all saying that this shouldn't be posted, but grain of salt and all that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To be slightly more accurate, Western media reported that North Korean media reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. Formerip (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support & Comment on Blurb: I say a better blurb might be "North Korean media announce the execution of senior government official Jang Song Thaek." I'd remove the 'counter-revolutionary' - it's not really necessary. Article needs updating. Colipon+(Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Could we include the fact that North Korean media now deleted all reference to Jang Sung-taek's existence [46]? Because I think it is this Damnatio memoriae attempt (Orwellian memory hole comes to mind) that makes this death/execution so notable. --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is kinda interesting, but blurbs have a limited length, so I say no. Also, I assume damnatio memoriae is just par for the course for North Korea, so not that extraordinary in context. Thue (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• attention by an admin, who should use her discretion in choosing a blurb is needed. There's no need to postpone this further. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted altblurb. Consensus is clearly in favour of a blurb, but no obvious consensus in favour of "counter-revolutionary" which of course can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

wow! 50% of the ITN is deaths in blurb format (and 50% is my nom, is it a record? ;))Lihaas (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we've had 100%, I think, around the time of Margaret Thatcher's shuffling-off. But well done all the same. Formerip (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

M23 agreement

Nominator's comments: A solid agreement is signed ending the conflict (for now anyways), this is the stuff we usually wait for in outcome.
A lot happenedin the world around us todayLihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Solid support for this. This is a long-running conflict that has filtered through into international affairs in all sorts of ways and very good news if it is coming to an end. GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per GoldenRing and nom. Neljack (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd be inclined to support but the update is one sentence way down in the body of the article. Jusdafax 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because we posted the end of this conflict a month ago and we don't need to chronicle each step towards relative normality that comes after. Formerip (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per FormerIP. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 11

---

Homosexual activity in India

Nominator's comments: LGBT rights in India has been updated. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Need a proper nomination

But oppose as its nothing news. It was illegal 150 years ago and this is just an upholding of the statute. Overturned a regional court ruling, so it it not even redeclaring illegality across the country as most of the country never legalised it in the first place.

Theres only one known instance of marriage...and i dont even even the know the official status of it. Clearly its not recognised, but merely some off-sect religious show piece.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That claim is disingenuous bordering on the obtuse. The 150 year old British statue was declared invalid 4 years ago by the Delhi high court since when Indians have enjoyed full sexual rights, backed by a court ruling. Those rights are now being taken from them in a time in which sexual rights is a top political issue across the globe. The fact that this is news, is of course made obvious by the prominent feature of the piece in world wide media. As for your second statement I have no idea what you are talking about as the ruling has nothing to do with marriage, but is about sexual relations, which I can inform you do frequently take place out of wedlock in most of the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, AGF first. Theres the jurisidcion space (which i quried on the page). The ruling has not yielded any difference in India (please point to one instance of chane?), neither is this an issue anywhere in Induia (or outside western dominion).

And as you say it is frequently taking palce anywhere, so what does this do? In the few years since if was "legalised" there has been nothing in that direction, and there will be nothing in this direction.Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Not real easy to AGF with this level of argumentation. Since 2009 Indians have had a courts word that they had aconstitutional right to have private consensual sex with eachother regardless of the sex of their partner. They don't have that any longer. That is a change. A homosexual person is now liable for prosecution and punishment. Yesterday they weren't. That is a change. I haven't a clue as to what you mean by "no change in that direction".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather run of the mill ruling. The Supreme Court did not come out of nowhere and create a law outlawing homosexual sex. According to CNN: "On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the penal code was constitutionally [emphasis mine] valid. It was up to parliament, the court said, to decide whether or not to keep the law in the statute books." Courts normally rule on constitutional mandates, not abstract morality without regard to the constitution. There's no indication the court would even consider overturning a repeal of this law. The ball is in the legislature's court. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• This nom isn't displaying in the top nav box... Someone fixed it, thank you. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was their Supreme Court overturning a lower court ruling that it was not illegal, thus reinforcing the status quo. The BBC's headline "India top court reinstates gay sex ban" says it all. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not really a news of global attention. Also, SC has simply said that HC calling section 377 as unconstitutional is wrong. SC has simply asked to get HC's thought straight (pun) and has also shown that its through a legislature that such clause can be revoked. Also, even with the precedent of Delhi HC of 2009 of "legalising" homosexuality, homosexuality was still a crime. Only that the case did not have much stand in lower courts which would heed to HC's decision. It could very well have been challenged at another HC or in front of a daring judge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you!Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this doesn't quite amount to making homosexual acts illegal, which I'd have supported posting. In the US, overturning a lower court ruling does not establish precedent. Is the ruling a dismissal with prejudice against further cases? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised if that's not the case in the US. In most Common Law countries, the ratio decidendi of any supreme court decision creates a binding precedent for all lower courts, and I'm pretty sure that's how it will be in India. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Dharmadhyaksha, who finally persuaded me with his comments. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

commonwealth solidaroity...birds of a feather...

and to boot...labour are out!vLihaas (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Awful news that is Lihaas. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I make no judgement calls. i just draw the parallelLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The two are not comparable. The Australian High Court struck down a gay marriage law as unconstitutionally conflicting with the federal law that controls marriage. It means that gay marriage can only be permitted in Australia by a federal law, which is likely to happen in time. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are legal throughout Australia and this has not changed. The issue before the High Court was a technical one about conflicting laws from different levels of government; the case had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of gay marriage. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The other ruling also called on the legislature to make a decision. Technically it made no judgement calls, just saying teh change# was invalid in reinstating and taht the government should be concerete in maiking the change. What this useless regime has been inept at doingLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support The status quo argument is fallacious, though I suspect it reflects a general cognitive bias in humans. There is no reason to regard a decision to maintain the status quo as less significant than a decision to change it. They are two sides of the same coin. But for the decision to change the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual where the status quo is maintained. Equally, but for the decision to maintain the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual when the status quo is changed). The impact of the decision is the same either way. We certainly do post items that just involve the status quo being maintained - we don't, for instance, refuse to post the re-election of Barack Obama because it just maintains the status quo of him being President. That's even true of court cases - we posted the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I'm sure that if Bowers v. Hardwick, which involved exactly the same scenario of a lower court striking down a law against gay sex and then the Supreme Court upholding it on appeal, was decided today we would post it. India is a country of more than a billion people, far more than the United States, yet we post fewer stories from it. If we are serious about combating systemic bias, we need to post stories like this that get widespread media attention not just in India but internationally too. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose posting Bowers or a similar US story too, the location is irrelevant to me. Posting re-elections (such as Obama) is not done on the basis of any particular individual being re-elected, but on the event itself(the election). While certainly not representative of the whole, the one Indian to post here opposes this too. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Neljack that maintaining status quo or going the other way round are equals. But, i guess i did not stress much in my initial opinion, that what is important is the gravity of news. The billion count of Indians doesn't matter. If that was the parameter we would have to have a separate China-India news section. Although, i would suggest that the nomination remain open. If the protests or other activities gain more strength, we can reconsider this topic, with some other blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Whatever way you look at it, sex between men was allowed in India and now its not. How can that not be considered significant news? It's all very well individual users saying they would oppose a similar story from the US (as if!), but not long ago we posted a blurb about a SCOTUS ruling which was something to so with the interstate recognition of pension rights for a tiny number of gay couples. It doesn't stack up. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasnt, and nothing has changed on the ground either in Delhi#s regional court or by this. What could create change is marriage and thats not touched either wayLihaas (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the Supreme court (unfortunately) took a black letter approach and 'upheld' the law, IMO if the court had overturned the penal code (like the High Court) then legally speaking it would be highly significant (a judicial review of 150 year old section of the penal code, which in India is quite rare), but court 'upholding' the law seems to be insignificant (atleast from a legal standpoint). LegalEagle (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 10

---

[Posted] Uruguay: Marijuana legalization

Nominator's comments: Article is slightly updated but more info is needed. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Other than pot heads and civil libertarians, this is kinda a "meh" story for me. Not sure there's a widespread interest in this one way or the other. Cannabis laws in many countries are either unenforced or liberal enough to be "essentially legal" (see Legality of cannabis by country, especially places like Iran and Netherlands). Good for Uruguay, a positive move in the right direction, but this really isn't a big deal, news-wise. --Jayron32 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32, I would have thought this would be an obvious support on your approach of following the news sources, given the widespread coverage it's getting.[47]Neljack (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point Jayron32, although I have to differ on your comment regarding its importance in the news. The content of this event is crucial, considering that Uruguay is a Latin American country and drug-related violence has been on the rise this year. If this legalization "works" in reducing violence, it is likely that other countries might follow a similar path, especially those torn by the drug war (Mexico and Colombia, for example). Thanks for your input anyhow. Regards, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Um, are there any more steps before this becomes law? Signing by the President? And when does it take effect? Any chance it will be overturned by a court? Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the bill was proposed by the President, I don't think he need concern us. As for a court overturning it, I doubt any of us are qualified to opine on Uruguayan constitutional law. Presumably it is possible, but it's hard to see that this could be argued to violate any constitutional rights and that possibility would exist with any bill. I don't think we usually refrain from posting them based on the speculative possibility that they might be struck down (we posted Obamacare when it was passed, for instance, notwithstanding the potential for it be struck down as unconstitutional - as it very nearly was). Neljack (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would like to know when it will be signed into law, and when it takes effect. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems from the Constitution of Uruguay that if the President has no objection to a bill he must "immediately" promulgate it (Article 143). If he does have objections (which clearly isn't the case here), he must exercise his power of veto within 10 days of receiving the bill (Article 137).[48] As for when it will take effect, this article says that the drug control agency will have 120 days to draft regulations on marijuana and suggests that the law could take effect by mid-2014.[49] Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a world first and a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pro-legalization and all, but a human rights issue? Let's not get TOO carried away. It is still just weed. --Jayron32 03:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. When criminalization leads to the arrests and incarceration of thousands of people, not to mention jobs lost and lives ruined due to those arrests, and to the violence associated with such arrests, and to the robberies and extortion of dealers and users, then yes, it is a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • • A fair point. Well explained. --Jayron32 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On that note , what did Guatemala's Molina react to this? Hes the #1 advocate of [rightfully]b legalizing even other drugs.Lihaas (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - a major development on an important and highly controversial issue. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Interesting first that is getting lots of international media attention. Is being watched closely by other Latin American countries to see if it will be effective in weakening the power of the drug gangs. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Oh yeah! Megalize larijuana! --Երևանցի ^talk 04:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Update Needed this will go up as soon as it's updated. It isn't. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support If this works in reducing violence other countries might follow with similar legislation. SeraV (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Major first and news worldwide. Somebody update. Jusdafax 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ready – Article is sufficiently updated, I believe. I may have more time tomorrow for more details. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm wondering about is whether the blurb should use "cannabis" instead of "marijuana". I note that our article is titled Cannabis (drug), with Marijuana being a redirect. Here in New Zealand both terms are in common usage - marijuana perhaps being a bit more common - and I believe the same is true in the United States. But I understand "marijuana" is less common in Britain ("hashish" is often used instead, from what I've read), so perhaps we should opt for "cannabis" per WP:ENGVAR. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support altblurb that I've just added based on Neljack's above comment. My reasoning is that the bolded article uses "cannabis" and so the blurb should to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted alt blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No objection to posting, but you could have taken the precaution of changing your username first... Formerip (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting support by the way. News sources are certainly carrying this from the look of it, and the article is in decent shape. --Jayron32 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What about North Korea? It's been completely legal (and even recommended as a healthier alternative to tobacco) for some time there. PWNGWN (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment Indeed. Marijuana prohibition isn't something that started in the murky mists of prehistory. It was legal in every country up until a certain point. And, as pointed out, in North Korea still. Blurb is inaccurate. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• According to Legality of cannabis by country, the status in North Korea is unknown, perhaps owing to the country's extremely closed society and difficulty in getting information out. --Jayron32 15:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis is not considered a drug in North Korea. [50] The fact that the whole chain of cultivation, sell, and consumption went from illegal to legal in Uruguay makes it a first time event, I think. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I was about to write about bhang, until I realized that it has been legal throughout the modern and ancient history in India, so it was probably never actually legalized (one simply does not legalize something that was never illegal to start with). --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Its not legal most of the yearLihaas (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] War crimes execution

--Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support after update Even if his conviction was posted before (which I don't remember), this seems to be notable in its own right. Brandmeister^talk 16:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support after update - definitly internationally interesting story.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems this wasnt posted

Yep, we just have to wait abother 2-odd hours for the news toaffirm he is not immortal.Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support upon update. Resolution of a war crimes case is notable. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Marked Ready this is updated and unopposed, head of J-e-I is obviously notable. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ready? Really? The bolded article is still written in the present tense, with some paragraphs implying he is still alive, as his execution has been stayed for another 6 or so hours. Also, the first link in the proposed blurb is a disambiguation page, to 5 different Jamaat-e-Islamis. Stephen 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Medeis is trigger-happy here, calm down please. The article needs work, the lead is too much and not in keeping with WP:LEAD, and Stephen makes a number of points. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this an actual oppose, a wait, or just another opportunity for you to demonstrate a lack of maturity? I ask because sincere oppose votes aren't normally begun with the mention of another editor. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Try reading it properly, thanks. You marked the article "ready" when it clearly was not. Try to remain calm. ("Please delete this after reading"). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is significant, particularly given the potential to cause unrest and the international concern about the fairness of the trials. Though it's not true that this is the first execution for war crimes - various Nazi leaders were executed for war crimes, among other things, at the Nuremberg Trials. Neljack (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting and has international implications. Article reasonably well-written with work continuing, and is updated. Jusdafax 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose His execution has been suspended for now anyway. I'll support this when and if he is actually executed. SeraV (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

comment seems we will wait till at least tomorrowLihaas (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait till hanged. LegalEagle (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support pending update. Law was changed after 2013 Shahbag protests and rarely do we see hangings (at least in recent decades) for warcrimes in democracies, but the article needs to be updated a bit. Lot of media coverage which seems to satisfy the derivative test of significance. LegalEagle (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I hope Lihaas doesn't mind but I reopened this, according to Al Jazeera [51] he was executed today. SeraV (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No probs at all...dodgy ref that was before then. Marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marked Readyagain, given the only remaining oppose is a pointy artifact. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The oppose was an oppose based on the fact that the article was not updated and you clearly assessed it incorrectly, not for the first time. It was not pointy. Besides, it's not like I sneakily called you an asshole and asked for it to be removed, is it Medeis? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted by the asshole. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought it was past your bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 5:35 pm, Today (UTC−5)

You'll never know. When you have a baby, you don't have a bedtime. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Will you two stop? youre starting to make me look goodLihaas (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, you certainly work hard to improve Wikipedia, rather than just sneak around the chat boards. You do look good in that respect! "Please delete this after reading"... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

wow! what smart asses to carry out an execution the day before Friday prayers...anyways, we could update the blurb to add the violence[52]Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New record low temperature

Nominator's comments: Coldest temperature ever recorded, I think it's significance is clear --yorkshiresky (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support when generally accepted. Lowest temperature recorded on Earth is a very big deal and an important record. The discovery has also received a wide media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Very important record + global coverage. I added links to the blurb, mainly the updated article Lowest temperature recorded on Earth. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• + it would be great to include the map and location (near Dome A at the East Antarctic Plateau). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article suggests that the temperature is a preliminary one which is highly likely to be refined to an even lower value. In fact, this article has the temperature at -94.7C. It also happened three and a half years ago, is that worth noting? And a minor point, it may be a "world record" but it won't be a "Guinness World Record" as it was calculated by satellite, not experienced by a thermometer. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps the blurb should say that it was indeed measured remotely, not at ground level, to avoid possible inaccuracy. I've changed the altblurb. Brandmeister^talk 12:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

strong oppose as moot apparently this temperature was recorded in 2012.# [UNSIGNED]

Meanwhile the article is missing many cites and poorly organised.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That guy Scambos specifically says: "I'd caution Guinness not to take this result and put it in their world record book just yet". Brandmeister^talk 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Getting coverage, and something most people would be interested in learning about, I think. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Feeble support The information has only been published, so the fact the observation was made in 2012 (wasn't it 2010?) is irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support not a commonly posted topic -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this was not peer-reviewed. Just a talk at a convention. Also, not really measured and probably not calibrated on the ground. Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to oppose because it isn't peer-reviewed, that is your prerogative, but the news coverage was quite open about the fact that this was a satellite analysis and not actual measurements. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• It makes the source worse than primary. I would oppose this displacing the Vostok base record in the article on lowest temperatures. I don't want to look there, but I suppose I must now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Abductive and TRM. Neljack (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 9

---

RIA Novosti

Nominator's comments: Operated from 1941. Btw, we have a quite vast Category:Images from RIA Novosti, now it's time to bid the agency farewell. Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Could you post a news source in the nomination template? That would help establish that this is indeed "in the news" and is in the posting instructions above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Added. Brandmeister^talk 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Getting lots of international media attention.[53][54][55][56] Appears to be part of Putin's attempt to increase his control over the media. I suggest that the blurb should reflect that radio broadcaster Voice of Russia is also being closed and that a new state-owned media agency called "Russia Today" is being created. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggesting such a blurb as a starting point, though I welcome a shorter one if someone can create one. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot - that looks good. My only caveat is that I haven't seen anything saying that it will be smaller. In fact, I would have thought it would be larger given that two organisations are being merged. But perhaps you've seen something in an article I haven't read? Neljack (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed "the smaller" from the blurb; I think I put that because some articles referenced being more efficient and affects on employees(such as layoffs) but it wasn't clearly said. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Neljack (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with altblurb and possible slight tweaks to it. The abolition process will take some time, perhaps that's why RIAN's website is still functioning. Brandmeister^talk 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems like the agency is being rebranded and re-organised, which may technically entail its abolition, but I don't see any reason why this is a very significant event in the context that government agencies everywhere get restructured all the time. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support in principle as notable in Russian politics, once a blurb is sorted out. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

comment/proceduralRT was not created now, its been around for awhile. Clearly I made the same mistake as the page's hat note, that should be clarified when posted.

Article is rather poor at the moment (though min. update I agree is met)Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• According to the articles this RT is distinct from the currently existing one. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The alternative blurb looks more complete to me, but should be reworded to reflect it in a simpler way that the two agencies are merged into a new one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't disagree but I am reading what seems to be contradictory information on that point; some articles talk about this as a restructuring/merge and some also state that the two prior agencies were "abolished" and a new one created(which is technically different than a restructuring). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 331dot. While there were some references to a "merger", there were also statements that appeared to indicate that it was not really a merger. My impression after reading various sources is that probably it's effectively a merger, but it may not formally be one. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor in chief Svetlana Mironyuk conducted an official farewell meeting with the RIA staff: [57]. From what I see, Russia Today will not be in continuous succession to RIA, but merely an agency to fill the empty spot and publish "the right information", so to speak. Brandmeister^talk 08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A very important message by Mr. Putin blatantly revealing his intention to control the media, but not globally significant event. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that an event be "globally significant", just that it receive wide media coverage(typically worldwide) which this has. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Not really significant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• In what way? 331dot (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I keep asking for reasons but apparently when the vote count is done this is never considred..v.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support this would be huge news in any other country, and it has been covered as such. I am not sure how the fact that it's only russia disqualifies the nom. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

AAG

• Here is the prior discussion on this merger when it was announced, where consensus seems to have been to wait until it occurred before posting, which it has. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Opppose important to stockholders and middle managers, otherwise a third-page, below-the-fold business item. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Getting lots of coverage,[58] not just in the US but also internationally, which is not surprising given that it creates the world's largest airline and is big even by corporate M & A standards. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The item is getting lots of coverage...on the back pages of business sections, not front pages or even front pages of business sections. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from web sources. I suspect it will be on quite a few front pages of business sections. And sports events that we post often are only in the sport section, not the front page of the newspaper. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Medeis I had to look hard to find it "in the news", the nomination lacked a source. This is trivial in the big scheme of things, just wait for the biggest bankruptcy in the world I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Medeis. The merger is also not something that was totally unexpected as American Airlines announced bankruptcy two years ago and the plans for this merger were discussed earlier this year. I also find the statement "world's largest airline" blown up in the blurb because all of the media deliver some kind of a canard with no supporting evidence on what merits the new airline will be the largest in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• I do tend to lean oppose on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a later date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page Talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We usually post announcements as they unfold information that one could have not anticipated from earlier. Future dates that are known from earlier are only matter of technicalities unless it's a very important event of wide interest. Another notable exception to this rule are some legislations or regulations who may be worth posting both at the time of their signing and the date when they are expected to come into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Field goal

Thailand update

Just called a new election as a result of the protests, thats a pretty big step, IMO. Though the protests are still ongoing its a massive culmination. (oxymoronic, i klnow, but you know what i mean (i hope)). Thai general election, 2014Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Are these commentaries intended to be nominations? Please use the ITN template like everyone else, add sources, and type carefully so people can understand what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Lihaas, please stop posting poorly formed ejaculations. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, Lihaas is proposing an update to the blurb rather than a new blurb. As such, I don't think he is required to comply with all the formalities for an nomination. Certainly updates have often been proposed like this, without being formatted as a formal nomination, and I don't recall there being objections to them on that basis. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, there seems to be (a) a requirement for a source and (b) a blurb so (c) please improve the quality of the nomination (and the quality of the English used to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support updating the blurb and bumping to the top The calling of new elections as a result of the protests is of obvious significance. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose post when elections are done, per ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the protesters go home(unlikely) and wait to post the actual election per TRM. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 8

---

Continued Ukraine protests

• Comment. Not opposed to bumping the story, but that blurb is about four times as long as it needs to be. Formerip (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. These were posted once already; is there some specific reason to post them again? (casualties, arrests, etc.) 331dot (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The protests today are the largest yet, per BBC and an AP wire report. Both sources speak of several 100,000s of people. The demonstrators seem to have topled and destroyed a statue of Lenin, a strong symbol of the Soviet era. The protesters also seem to have given the government 48 hours to resign. I have no opinion whether these warrant re-posting right now, but would definitely support posting if the government resigns. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Comments: I have no experience with "Candidating" for "In the news" so forgive me my errors please. For instance I could not get the altblurb 2 = During the continued Euromaidan protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government into the template.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion — Seems to me this — "Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'" — would make a good hook for an updated blurb. [59] (IMO, it's high time for Old Baldy to go ... he's been dead for 90 years, and the state he founded has been dead for more than 20 years.) Sca (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If its a matter of 48 hours, wait. either way we should hav something worthy of an update to ITN.Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Inquiry: Altblurb 2 can someone comment on how a second altblurb is listed? I know I have seen it done recently. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IIRC someone used a hack where they specified the third blurb with <br> in altblurb=. If there is a serious need for specifying more than two blurbs, it can be added of course. --hydrox (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I was asking on behalf of Yulia, per above. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks μηδείς! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment BBC reports that the police are breaking up the protests. The situation seems to be in flux. --hydrox (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuing story — Dec. 11 — "Ukraine protests: outrage as police attack Kiev barricades" (Includes video of police attack.) However, "Police Pull Out of Kiev Square After Move on Demonstrators" [60]Sca (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Every aspect of action/reaction is in the news, but thats notable enough to update here. More notable is the Thai protests which yielded somethingLihaas (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly you meant to say "that's not"? Sca (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support this seems to be growing and is top of the news this morning. The nomination is unclear. Which article has been updated? μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope I fixed that + I made 2nd alt. blur that I consider the best one yet (it is NPOV and true).

• Dec. 12 — "Ukraine protesters defy police, leaders reject talks with president" [61] Sca (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Today they did talk to the president.... BBC — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd vote support again. The PM has also implied the EU agreement will be signed. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

strong oppose even if he acceded to the EU agreement per the precedent that Thailand resulted in something and wasn't posted.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

CAR update/bump

Djotodia has now admitted he has no control over the country (or only parts) and there is thus talk of the UN using its executive mandate that was used in kosovo and east timor to run the countryLihaas (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Exoplanet with largest orbit

• Support DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like an important discovery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to be a notable discovery, and getting enough coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although it's an interesting story, there doesn't appear to be anything extremely newsworthy about it. Exoplanets are discovered regularly and biggest orbit doesn't seem to be particularly important as a record, in itself. It seems like a challenging discovery for people working in the field, but ITN isn't meant to be a current awareness bulletin for astronomers. Searching Google news, this doesn't seems like it's even the biggest talking point to do with exoplanets this week (the Hubble telescope discovered water on some a few days ago, which has generated broader coverage). I think whether something gets covered by the science section of BBC news is a good indication of how important it is, and this hadn't been, yet. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is being covered in the UK, though. What is notable here aside from the orbital distance is that no one can figure out how it got there, making it very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention the BBC because it is British, but because I know it has good science journalists who will have some sort of clue when scrutinising a press release, and will sort the wheat from the chaff. And, yes, I understand why it is interesting, but interesting things are discovered all the time in scientific research and they are not always epoch-making or ITN-worthy. Planet formation is a developing area of study, so it not surprising (or unusual, I suspect) that new discoveries will throw up new challenges. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You certainly must rely on whatever sources you wish for whatever reason (as we all do, no problem there) but IMO this appears in enough sources around the world (Googling I even saw a Czech story) to justify an appearance. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This appears to be a significant story resulting in a discovery which was previously unknown and lays down an important milestone in further research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

support/comment no need to mention UAz as its too long and the important bit is just the dis covery...ldetails can go on the page.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's a pretty arbitrary and meaningless record, which will inevitably be beaten as exoplanet surveys go on for longer (thus giving a longer baseline for orbit discovery). Better to stick to genuinely scientifically interesting exoplanet discoveries. Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• What is "scientifically interesting" is a matter of opinion; the worldwide media would seem to disagree with you. Most records will inevitably be beaten,(WP:CRYSTAL) that hasn't stopped us from posting them before. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course I'm giving my own opinion. That's true of most !votes on this page. I do consider myself qualified to assess the significance of astronomical discoveries. My point was also that the record will doubtless be passed soon i.e. within a few years. Modest Genius ^talk 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the discovery upends current theories on planet and star formation, so it's not just a bare fact, but an outlier in our knowledge of the universe. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Upends" does not appear to be correct. We are not talking about settled science here, but about models that are at a stage of revision and debate. This discovery just provides a new talking-point. Furthermore, unless you know something that none of the sources are reporting, no-one has yet come up with a proper proposal as to what effect it might have on current models. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting what I have read from the sources; "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see" [62]; and am not prepared to offer my OR on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fascinating. It's just not a major news story.Formerip (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marking Ready well updated, strong support. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The planet isn't mentioned in the link on "most distant orbit around a single star". The link should only be in the blurb if the planet is there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Modest Genius and Formerip. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - ITN has run blurbs like this before: not huge headlines, but in the news withan advance in human knowledge of goodly scientific note. This article is decently written and evokes a sense of wonder, due to the very great distance it is from it's sun. From what I understand, this record will not be surpassed soon. The comment about the planet not being on the list appears correct, and that should be fixed prior to posting. Jusdafax 20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel competnt to make that change. I have left a message with the nominator, and will with DarthBotto. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbitrary. Also, most supports seem to be "seems like an important discovery" while opposers seem to present good suggestions as to why this is purely arbitrary and of no widespread interest. Not ready, as assessing quality of opinion rather than pure vote-counting is what's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Hello, this is the original creator of the article in question. I should point out that that blurb should be changed, as the planet of DT Virginis has the greatest orbit still. I would suggest there being a mention of the ratio in mass differentiation between the two parts of the binary star, which accounts for the possibility of the orbit being maintained. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I can fix the blurb, but the planted still needs to be added to the chart. I am hoping someone more certain of the issue will add it to List_of_exoplanet_extremes#Orbit_characteristics. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have updated the list, so we should be good to go now! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Remarked Ready the blurb issue of the secondary link has been taken care of, the article is well updated, and there's still strong consensus in favor of the posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Created more better/less verbose blurb. (Sotrry a better word for that is slipping me)Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a god altblurb, an even better might be:

Altblurb2 "Astronomers at the University of Arizona discover HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star" as it uses the active voice, not the passive. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously, with content like "As it turned out, whovians found it a lot alike the home-planet of the Doctor himself – Gallifrey", and comments above regarding what the news "seems" to be about, this isn't suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the Dr. Who passage. The news sources given state why this has been reported in worldwide media. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I had the same concern when I saw that. The blurb should specify why it is significant, per article's lead. Otherwise it's indeed a "so what?", as was noted above. Brandmeister^talk 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how about:

• The exoplanet HD 106906 b is discovered with the most distant orbit around a single star, farther than thought possible.

If Nebular hypothesis (a featured article) had a section saying how far it was thought possible then we could link it on thought possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Support that blurb (with possible small alterations). Brandmeister^talk 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I support that blurb, and have overwritten it in the altblurb field in the template. This is red ta go. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess it wouldn't be ITN if we didn't post stupid cruft from time to time. However, the planet isn't further from the star than it had been thought possible for a star to be, it is that appears to be a mis-match and the structure of the planet and the size of its orbit. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try explaining your objection clearly, FIP, rather than wasting everybody's time calling names? We can adjust the blurb, you know. Or was this just venting? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can be clearer. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposing a new or modified blurb might work, I'd assume. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd go for removing the words "farther than thought possible" from the blurb. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, isn't the point of your objection (now that I think about it) more that this is an unexpected distance for a super-Jupiter? I'd be totally in favor of saying "super-Jupiter planet" insted of just "planet". μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 7

---

[Posted] Bali Package

--Lihaas (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support if updated. This is a major international development. --hydrox (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support major international event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Suggest the blurb is expanded to explain what this actually means and its significance if this is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem at least at this hour is that there is no clear information in the press about the full effects of the agreement. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Then while it looks very positive, it should be held from main page until we come to an understanding on the best way of blurbing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree (that's why I wrote "if updated" in my !vote.) At current state, the article is way premature for the main page; we basically have just the first comments from a few parties and short summary of the negotiations. There should also be sourced information about the actual content of the agreement, like practical effects on future customs and tariffs. --hydrox (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support After so long of the WTO failing to reach agreements, this is highly significant. The potential benefits have been estimated at US$1 trillion. Agree with TRM about the blurb, which should in particular make clear that the agreement deals with trade facilitation rather than reducing tariffs. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support pending article improvement - As Hydrox notes, the article is just getting started. Jusdafax 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Wouldn't a hint on what the Bali Package is be necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • See my comment an hour-and-a-half ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It's complicated. What I understand is that the Package includes several decisions (oa on Cotton), but most commentators focus on one of them (Agreement on Trade Facilitation) and seem to equivalage the package with that. I have tried to clarify. The Agreement on Trade Facilitation is "just" concluded and enters into force after 2/3 of the countries has ratified it (and then only for those who ratified); while the others might have effect earlier (or even immediate)… I have added an alt blurb that is correct and gives a bit more information….L.tak (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It's a little better but it still remains inaccessible to most people.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd have to agree…. The dilemma is: the only way to really understand what was decided is to dive into the agreement texts which is original research… The news items are of very little use, as they at the moment don't seem to care about detailed content, entry into effect and full consequences… It's for that reason that I not casting a support or oppose vote here…. L.tak (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Altblurb2 The WTO unanimously adopts the "Bali Package", aimed at liberalizing world trade μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Medeis' proposed blurb; notable international agreement. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Should that blurb be used, I'd suggest to modify that blurb to "aimed at liberalizing word trade". The largest part will require over 100 ratifications, so it certainly isn't a done deal yet… L.tak (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Medeis' proposed blurb, but I am concerned that the first sentence in the article has a {{citation needed}} on it. When/how it will go into effect is not mentioned in the article yet. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • • I agree with L.tak, I was actually considering adding "aimed at" myself, so I will add the phrase. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

tAG removed. (and reworded)Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marked Ready the article has several well formed paragraphs, plenty of sources and no tags. Support is strong. I bring to the attention of any posting admins the support for the second altblurb immediately above in the discussion section. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is much improved, and I endorse posting per my conditional support. Jusdafax 03:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 6

---

North American cold wave

Nominator's comments: Record snowfall and precipitation has hit the United States and has caused traffic slowdowns --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The article would need much expansion before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Royal Marine sentenced to life imprisonment for murder

Nominator's comments: A high-profile military trial relating to the Afghan War has concluded. An ITN precedent might be Robert Bales; or, more tangentially, Haditha killings getting a place on WP:OTD. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 5

---

[Posted] Nelson Mandela

--MASEM (t) 21:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is the kind of death that deserves a blurb. His impact is beyond anything I could type here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, he was very notable in the human history. Egeymi (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious support. I think this could be posted ASAP. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Do it quick. Küñall (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support-full blurb only. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Obviously. Resolute 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, although I doubt anyone would oppose (I'll be proved wrong in due course!) - one of the world's most notable personalities of the late 20th century. But never mind "do it quick" - let's make sure the article has a decent update first. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is in good (if not great) shape, and the death is noted and cited; there really only needs a paragraph at the moment about his death in one section, but prior to this we knew his health was not great. And now we'll get more on his legacy as the world renumerates on his influence, but that shouldn't stop posting without that. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The article is a Good Article, which is better than 95%+ of what we post here, so article quality isn't an issue. There's already a legacy section, though maybe a sentence or two more at the end of "'Retiring from retirement': 2004–2013" would be good. Spencer^T♦C 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support obviously --Երևանցի ^talk 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: It's proving very difficult to update the article with all the edit conflicts. Spencer^T♦C 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I had trouble adding my support vote here due to edit conflicts. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per Muboshgu. - JuneGloom Talk 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support - Widespread coverage, significant figure. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support I support this. He was one of the most influential and notable persons of the 20th century. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Photo? I think Mandela deserves it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support — The renowned human-rights leader is an instant ITN choice. [63] Sca (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes (ec) the greatest living human as of today. Immediate posting was warranted. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted photo to follow Stephen 22:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Definitively - most notable person in human history Miszatomic (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• There might be at least one person who would disagree but I get the sentiment. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Being one of the largest names in, well, South African history, as well as impacting the world in such a widespread way makes this an obvious choice. Article coverage is likely to explode in the next hour or so alone. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Beaten to posting it multiple edit conflict support - no brainer. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A very obvious support- huge news. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Endorsement of decision to post to full blurb. Significance of the man undeniable. Redverton (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and endorse full blurb. Well done, editors. Jusdafax 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for shites and larfs.... Ahhhh who am I kidding?! Obvious Support for full blurb and picture! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WTFArs in all the posts below that also have support (and this is an obvious support no doubt) there is an update requirement and the page currently links to "Mandela died on 5 December 2013 at the age of 95, at home and surrounded by his family.[346] His death was announced by President Jacob Zuma.[" Llikewise UPDATE THIS FIRST!!!!Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you just oppose things for the hell of it? The article quality and update questions are already discussed above. Please be more polite, type more carefully, and read what others have said. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See this from the criteria: "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." This seems like a classic case for applying that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also to add: the article, prior to yesterday, was in pretty damn fine shape, and included up to the point of his poor health in September of this year. His death was quiet (in his bed), and the "major" update will come from the next several days. (Heck, I would not be surprised if there is a "Death of Nelson Mandela" article on the horizon, given how much tribute we're seeing so far. As such, the article was in the proper shape to let readers figure out where to add new material they felt they could contribute. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting support When I thought of people who would warrant blurbs Mandela was the first and most obvious name that came to mind. The huge worldwide coverage is a testament to his remarkable impact not only in South Africa, but around the world as a symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an orange level tag on teh top of the page. Articles dont go up ofor that. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rules say: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link". I'll say this is a case where we should use the exception: It's huge news and article has previously gone through a "Good Article" process. Iselilja (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The orange tag was placed after the posting, and has since been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gone now - and unless the editor who wished it to be there can come up with any real evidence of a POV issue on th GA article in question, it's likely to stay that way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Updated in light of the concern of certain editors above that this was posted without an update, see this diff showing a good deal of work done since posting, and a well-updated death section. I think the policy followed here was appropriately WP:Break all rules. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, that's not a policy, it's a "humorous essay". There's a big difference, you'd do well to learn that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • They might have meant WP:IAR which is policy, and likely would have been applicable if the update was all but "he died". --MASEM (t) 14:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • They might also have consistently confused policy with guideline with essay. Hence the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Post-posting support - This is the major story on all news stations even now.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Central African Republic

Nominator's comments: Things are getting worse in CAR. We've had this article on ITN twice already, the latest in March, but it seems there has been some new development. The article is full of tags, though. --Tone 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Is there a specific event here to hang our hat on? (i.e. to have a blurb about) The BBC article seems to just be a general article about the poor situation there. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, probably this was not the best link. France is sending more troops.[64] This is a relevant development. Otherwise, it's a very ongoing story. --Tone 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)strong support/sticky there is a lot happening down there (and I was looking for an article...Would like to seperate the Seleka conflict article from the conflict under the Djotodia administration). It is often off the news, but in the last few weeks a bunch of stuff is crawling into the headlines. The law and order problem, the ethno-religious violence, sexual violence too.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

After prodding, I've not created the new page and added a potential blurb. But the article needs work.Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be very important. Agree with the above comments about the blurb. My offering is something connected to this story - [65] - The UN, for the first time ever, uses drone surveillance in the DR Congo Conflict - but this might detract from Tone's original suggested story, so feel free to ignore it. CaptRik (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Different conflict, a long, long way away from the CAR! Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, it's been a very long day! CaptRik (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support; maybe we can combine the genocide claim and France's deployment of troops? Though I don't want the blurb too long. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wait So far no indication that it actually happened (and I hope it will not). Bad news, of course, but currently the article contains a speculation with no casualties. Brandmeister^talk 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I did put a note on the article [66] and above that it needs more work.

However, thre has been masive instability and violence. I was trying to work a blurb per the lack fo an original one. Feek free to suggest others instead of just refuting one.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support now. Brandmeister^talk 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the warnings by foreign politicians of the risk of genocide warrant posting. Actual evidence of genocide or crimes against humanity would. If we did have that in the blurb then, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, we would need to also include the response of the CAR government strongly disputing the suggestions (which would probably make the blurb too long). The deployment of French troops is a better candidate, but there are already international peacekeepers there, so I'm not convinced it is sufficiently significant either. Neljack (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Similar to others above, I think this story is important and should be posted, but it would be better to have a specific significant even to list rather than, essentially, 'the conflict in CAR is still happening and gradually getting worse.' GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ethno-religious conflict?

Alsthough a google news search is dominated by French troops (as in the news) and calls for itnerventions. Still I think the former is more neutralLihaas (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

comment for anyone with the time/interest, see the talk page where i aded a bunch of stuff. Im very busy this week to add and sort it.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the quotes around genocide as they may be misinterpreted as scare quotes. Support if they are removed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Clarify a clearer rationale would help. The "international community" "warning" is very vague at best. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Warnings of genocide, not an actual genocide.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

changed blubrb keyword.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

note UNSC resolution should pass tomorrow giving a mandate tol a force. That should be blurb worthyLihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to wait for a Security Council resolution, as we could make a clearer blurb with one. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Now over 400,000 people are reported as being displaced, perhaps we can post that. Brandmeister^talk 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seleka military commander deadLihaas (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest blurb. Or, we wait until UNSC decision that comes out today. --Tone 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

btw- International Support Mission in the Central African RepublicLihaas (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE less than a n hour ago 2127 was passed unaimously, blurb updated

• Strong support This is a serious and quickly escalating situation we have here in the CAR. Absolutely for ITN after some updates. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The new blurb is good, I would like to see some update, then ready to post. --Tone 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, ive provided (and asked) the necessary info. if someone cares to...Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle as important news about a dire situation. Wider implications for instance than a plane crash in Mosambique (33 killed) that are currently featured. I don't think however that any of the two articles are very good at the present stage. I would also have preferred a simplied blurb that was easier to grab for ordinary readers, for instance starting "The United Nations establishes the peacekeeping operation MISCA" Iselilja (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, seems to be an emergency UN action. Muslim militias supposedly shelling 35,000 Christians trapped in a compound. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

marked ready per the precedence on update lited above this. Likewise, the support is near unamnimousLihaas (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 01:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

wow...;)

Timet set?Lihaas (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 4

---

[Posted] The NSA is spying on everybody, everybody, everywhere, all the time, forever

Nominator's comments: Truly breathtaking in scale, affects every person on the planet who uses a cell phone. Yes, you reading this. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this is all over the media here, and I guess it is much the same in other countries. An absolutely unprecedented revelation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Snowden's revelations are becoming quite frequent, and honestly I don't think this is going to shock much of the jaded public. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Most of the Snowden revelations had actually been hinted on before Snowden. What makes the Snowden revelations interesting is that we now have solid proof, which makes all the difference. So even if it was suspected before that the NSA were keeping tabs on people using cellphones, knowing it is so is actually important news. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• comment should this article be updated? --Երևանցի ^talk 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. On a cold, dispassionate level, it's not that surprising that a massively funded secretive agency has secretly gathered massive amounts of information. And while I am undeniably as jaded as everyone else (neither positive nor negative about Snowden's actions, but jaded nonetheless), the scale of it is unbelievable. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The NSA doing exactly what they are intended to be doing is not news; and once again we are not a Snowden ticker(or a ticker for his mouthpiece The Guardian). 331dot (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, we no longer will post any news items about wars, since war is just soldiers doing their jobs? The fact that NSA has been ordered/allowed to do this is huge news! And once again, we should consider posting this because it is notable (and widely covered), not because we are a "Snowden ticker". Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Wars are notable in terms of international relations and are not common. The NSA doing its job is not news. Further this information is being spilled a little at a time to maximize attention and sell newspapers. They've had this information since Snowden allegedly stole it and gave it to them. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The NSA is collecting location data on many millions of people. This is self-evidently hugely notable. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 5 billion people per day. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 5 billion records per day (the source says hundreds of milions of people, so still very significant, but not 80% of the world population!). Given that they have access to data going over mobile networks, this isn't all that surprising, since your mobile phone checks in with the network reasonably frequently, and once you know which basestations receive the signal, getting a ball park location is easy. MChesterMC (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support pending update - Another NSA revelation: Not only are they archiving everything everyone says, they are recording everywhere everyone goes. International scope, and of interest to a wide range of readers. NSA article appears to have no update, however. Jusdafax 12:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Edward Snowden is performing perhaps the largest media stunt in modern history. You may view that as a good thing or as a bad thing, but there's little arguing the fact that he's releasing his information in such a way as to garner the most attention. ITN is not intended to cover gradual progresses. It's the same reason we no longer post routine gay marriage items and such. While this is clearly one of the larger Snowden disclosures, there's nothing that particularly sets it aside from the rest of them—it stays in the category of computerized mass surveillance on a global scale, with little effect to your average person (despite the nominator's hyperbolic comment). The leaks overall are certainly ITN-worthy (and sat on the Main Page for a week or so when they first took place), but I see no reason to think that, within the context of the leaks, this is a truly extraordinary one. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be a media stunt, but that does not make it not ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not directly, no. But the operative part of the stunt is the dramatically-paced glacial release of all the documents, which lead to a new round of headlines two-three times a week, and thus turn this into a routine news item. I return to my gay marriage analogy: We posted the decision in United States v. Windsor, because from a historical perspective that was far more significant than your run-of-the-mill "liberal state to allow gay marriage" headline. I'd argue that you have to prove a similar situation with this specific Snowden leak, that this should be seen as a defining moment in the disclosures, that the vast majority of routine leaks pale in comparison to this particular one. And no, saying "ZOMG they're spying on EVERYONE" does not count as proving those points. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the big one, of all of the releases. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And what happens when the next release is considered "the big one"? Every one seems to be "the big one". 331dot (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose this is a media stunt to piecemeal list everything and get attention, we cant post it all...unlike wikileaks' once in a go releaseLihaas (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Most of these Opposes seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the supports seem to be WP:ILIKEITLihaas (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. A government agency performing its function is not notable. I'll also second PinkAmpersand's comments. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. It is not an issue to oppose something because it is becoming very common at ITN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support this should have been posted last time about nsa spying national leaders, but it wasn't for some reason. Given that this really should be posted this time. SeraV (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose we need not repeat the same story over and over again. It's been posted already. When the NSA stops tapping phones and Internet, that will be news. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The criteria for ITN are 'the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.' Because the question of significance of an event is always relative (even at the best of times there would always be some bias), we generally rely on secondary source tests like wide reporting in media etc. The current set of disclosures on phone tapping has received very wide media attention and has made headline news in most newspapers, so for me the test of significance is satisfied. But again wiki is not a newspaper and in near future Guardian and others are going to be feeding more info and as some editors have pointed out above ITN may look like a ticker. Similar queries were raised during the discussion of ITN for the syrian civil war related news and if I remember correctly that discussion did not lead to a major policy change but reaffirmed the consensus notion that only if there is a significant development in an ongoing conflict or ITN worthy item, the update would be posted. There has been a surge in media news over this '5billion call records' story and if we look at the webtraffic to the NSA article we would see a slight trend towards an increase (however it could be cyclic as well), but another article dealing directly with the leak Global surveillance disclosure seems to have a higher traffic flow than even the NSA article, thus from the trends I would conclude that the latest leaks are significant and hence I would support ITN for Global surveillance disclosure. LegalEagle (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is, there's not a news event related to this. The fact that newspapers will release "revelations" when other news is slow is not itself a relevant event. I would actually like to have the NSA matter itself highlighted across the new and old media, but a support on that basis would be like voting in favor of posting a minor shooting or a development in gay marriage because gun violence or LGBT issues are personally important to me, not because of the impact of the story itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: per User:Thue Brigade Piron (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Significant development that is getting widespread international coverage. I note that we haven't posted anything on this subject for quite some time. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Abductive's comments about IDONTLIKEIT are absolutely correct. We have people asserting that this is "not news", despite the fact is getting widespread international coverage in the news media. Clearly what is meant is that it shouldn't be news - in other words, IDONTLIKEIT. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My objection is not IDONTLIKEIT. My objection is that the initial theft/leak of information was posted, and we don't need to post every revelation that The Guardian/Snowden chooses to release, to maximize attention and sell newspapers. I have a further objection in that this story is only stating that the NSA is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It would be like reporting "US Park Rangers patrol National Park". That's their job. Same with the NSA.

Lastly, many stories get "widespread international coverage in the news media" and are not posted (such as a first-ever event for a nation) so that isn't enough of a reason to post something, and never has been. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My point in noting the widespread international media coverage was not that this was sufficient by itself for posting, but to show that your claim that this was "not news" was patently false. Nobody has suggested that we should every revelation that is released - that is a straw man. But we should not decline to post stories that are of sufficient significance because of the way in which the information has been released - that is quite irrelevant to its significance. Finally, I find the point about the NSA just doing their job quite bizarre. Are we now saying that things people do as part of their jobs should not be posted? That would, for instance, rule out virtually everything that politicians do. No doubt the NSA is doing its job, but the point is that the way it is doing its job has caused considerable international controversy. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And that controversy is being stretched out artificially by a newspaper. Let's get the whole kit and kaboodle released so we can actually decide what is the "most important revelation" in the stolen information. In another week we will likely be back here discussing yet another "most important" bit of information. It is obviously true that no one has actually suggested posting all stories from Snowden's trove, but that is de facto what is happening. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian may have been the first to report on it, but they aren't the only ones doing so. If the international media publishes something that only involves very specific groups, I do understand that not all of Snowden's documents may have a long lasting effect and we should not include such details here. But this one affects the global population at large. -A1candidate (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

These ever growing accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" are beyond silly. That applies to genres or works, not disagreements over notability/significance/importance. Nobody has opposed this nomination because they don't like the Guardian or the NSA. How in the world does pointing out that there's no new event (i.e., no new news) associated with this release, that could have been made last week or next, amount to not liking anything? The whole point of this page is to come to consensus on notability/significance/importance, and saying that people cannot express the judgment that a nomination lacks notability/significance/importance because that would be "NOTLIKINGIT" is to fail to understand both the scope of that policy and the purpose of this page. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Snowden's revelations have been described as the biggest data leak in US history and so on. I fail to see to see how current inclusions such as "The Rugby League World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final." could be considered more important than "the most damaging blow dealt to Australian intelligence in the nation's history." -A1candidate (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it was the biggest data leak- which is why it was posted when it occurred. We don't need to post it every time The Guardian chooses to release some information. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That will ultimately depend on the significance of the leak itself. This particular leak certainly is one of the most significant ones:

Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, called it "staggering" that such a massive location-tracking program "could be implemented without any public debate."

I just fail to see how the conclusion of rugby tournament could ever be more significant than this -A1candidate (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Every leak seems to be "the most significant". We have no way of knowing which one truly is, as The Guardian drips their info out a little at a time to maximize attention. Rugby is ITNR and its presence on ITN does not mean it is "more significant" than anything else; each item is judged on its own merits(or should be, at least). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of them are individually significant and will ultimately affect the course of world history. A rugby tournament may be a recurring item, but that alone does not make it significant. I also have to point out that it was The Washington Post, and not The Guardian, who made this particular revelation. -A1candidate (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I could understand posting historical effects of this information, such as a nation expelling diplomats or cutting off diplomatic relations, but the leak happened and was over with when it happened. The news source cited above is The Guardian(and they have the information). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The historical effects of Snowden's disclosures are not just limited to foreign relations. The disclosures themselves involve equally important topics such as human rights, the freedom of the press, and more importantly, the individual privacy of every human being on Earth.The leak is not over yet, it has just begun. If you have been following Snowden's disclosures closely, and if you were to take another look at The Guardian article, it should be clear that their report is almost entirely based on an earlier version by The Washington Post, one which The Guardian rightfully gives credit to. -A1candidate (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The leak has already occurred; Snowden and those working with him are not currently stealing information. They are only releasing what they already possess. I understand there are potentially other effects; if laws are passed, people arrested, or other actual, current events due to this, then I would probably support posting that. This is not a current event, it is a public relations stunt to generate sympathy for Snowden and his cause. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the news leak is an ongoing occurence. The copying of electronic information by Snowden should not be confused with the leaking of information itself. The news leak started when Snowden first sent his documents, but it certainly did not end there, or else the public wouldn't have known anything about it. Not sure why any newspaper woukd "generate sympathy" for Snowden and risk being investigated by state prosecutors on charges of terrorism -A1candidate (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I presume they would do so due to the aforementioned causes you speak of(free press, etc.) 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Surprisingly, Snowden's evidence is continuing to reveal major new aspects of the surveillance programme. This is a significant revelation, above and beyond what came before. Previously he was talking about either discovering who was talking to whom, or reading people's messages. Now it's about actually tracking where they are. That's another major step, and worth another blurb. This is important news, regardless of how tired some of the commentators above have become of the ongoing story. Modest Genius ^talk 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• And we'll be back here in another week or two with another bit of "important news" about this leak that is being stretched out artificially. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have no problem with that. Modest Genius ^talk 02:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Then we should just establish a ticker for Snowden to back this artificial media circus. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody is asking for a Snowden ticker. There are some disclosures that would only be of interest to specific groups such as IT specialists and citizens of a particular country, but other disclosures are of interest to the global population at large. I think we're just seeking to include those that belong to the latter category. Not doing so would grossly compromise the goal of ITN to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest." -A1candidate (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is only continued wide interest because one newspaper working with Snowden has decided there should be. The actual event, the loss/theft of the information, already generated the wide interest; these drip-drip releases done only out of self-interest just serve to continue it long after the actual event has passed. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you would be more careful before making such accusations, because your statement is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, though The Guardian seems to be the most well-known. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support alt blurb only, with Global surveillance disclosure as the main topic. This is not about Snowden, who is said to have given everything to the reporters, who are releasing it how they see fit. This specific revelation is an opportune time to give people the high level view as provided by Global surveillance disclosure. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Should this be getting major coverage? Probably. But it is generally not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. This has been largely absent from the news cycle and is only getting the same coverage the other revelations. A Google Trends analysis of NSA shows that search interest is waning, indicating that it is less likely that readers will be searching for the content because it is in the news. What this does reveal is that we probably should have posted the spying-on-other-nations story (when there WAS a significant jump in searches), but that time has come and gone. I am also rather concerned with the fact that every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post, the publisher of these revelations who has a significant stake in the success of the story. There may yet be another story from these Snowden leaks that makes headlines and would make for an appropriate ITN item, but this one is not it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your assertation that "every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post" is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. This is something that is reported by the international media, not just a single newspaper. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Look I agree here with you a bit, however that other spying-on-other-nations story was filibustered by the same people this story is now, and ultimately ignored in spite of reasonable consensus to post it. And I fear that all other stories about this are going to face the same fate, so if this is not posted now I fear it never will be again. That aside I do believe this story does have reasonable consensus to be posted now. SeraV (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, "... all the time, forever" makes it sound less like a typical news event. But I don't see why the huge size and momentum of this story makes it any less worthy of posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. And soon, before this one too has been talked into stagnation. This is a story that is huge in scope and, while originating from one nation, is one of the few stories we've seen that is quite literally global. GRAPPLE X 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not talking anything into stagnation, nor is anyone else. People are expressing valid concerns and opinions. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  No need to be defensive (unless you think a nameless statement refers to you) but the previous stories about the NSA were talked about until they went stale and frankly I'd like to see us actually post one some time before the sun explodes. GRAPPLEX 23:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  When was the last NSA story that was posted to ITN? Links to ones that were talked to death and not posted would also be helpful for people like me who don't frequently participate in ITN. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The last one I saw ended up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Marking as ready Article is updated. I believe there is consensus, both numerically (two to one in favour) and in terms of strength of arguments. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yay! "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, User:‎Stephen, so glad someone was watching...

Libyan law

Nominator's comments: Well its a landmark jurisprudence change just short of a new constitution. Not to mention perhaps the highest change since 2011. --Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. An Islamic country voting to use Islam as the basis of its laws is not news. It'd be news if they voted to be more secular. I also appreciate the news source given, but I'm finding little coverage of this at this point. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Contra 331dot, this is significant news. Only a minority of Muslim countries have sharia as the basis of their whole legal system. More commonly, it only applies in certain contexts, generally relating to family and personal status matters. See this article: [67] Neljack (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• According to that article Libya had some degree of sharia law during Gaddafi's regime, so this is not a massive change in policy. Further, as I said already I am not seeing many stories on this vote(nothing yet on NBC, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Le Monde), 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Such a fundamental law is obviously notable. Just imagine if the US made a law tomorrow that "the bible is the basis for all law in the country". Would 331dot then say "A Christian country voting to use Christianity as the basis of its laws is not news."? Thue (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• The US is a secular country per its constitution. If we amended our Constitution to recognize Christianity as the state religion and The Bible as the source of our laws, that would be news. It would not be news if the US as a secular country voted to be a secular country. That said, this vote has nothing to do with their Constitution (which has yet to be written), if it did, then I might be more persuaded to support it. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So why did you presume that Islamic countries have Islamic law? Lots are secular, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and a bunch of others like Seneral , etc.Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make here is that Libya has used at least elements of sharia law in the past and simply voted to do what they had been doing before. It also is not yet in their Constitution; if it was, we could post it in that context(and I would support that). 331dot (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support pending update or change of target article - A big news story, international in scope due to the recent revolution and murder of the head of state. I notice the target article is not updated and now tagged by the nominator. Perhaps it would be better to update the Libya article itself. Jusdafax 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm dropping my opposition as I am now starting to see this appear in other news outlets. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• There has been no update to the bolded article. Stephen 01:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 3

---

[Withdrawn] 2012 PISA Results

[Recent Deaths] Ahmed Fouad Negm

Nominator's comments: Famous Egyptian poet whose songs were popular during the 2011 Revolution. Al Ahram described him as "one of Egypt’s most renowned vernacular poets of the second half of the 20th century". Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support when updated. Seems to have been one of the most high profile Egyptian poets. Currently there is no mention of his death in the prose at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support upon update with death information per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Death info now present; I fully support posting. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Seems to qualify for RD. A writer who made a significant impact not just on literature but also on his country. Neljack (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• I've updated the article (2 lines and 3 sources for those who count). There is however an orange tag added about an hour ago as two sections of the article are without references to back them up. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WHY? ITN needs reasons, we dont vote count..Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose When a poet is awarded for being an ambassador for the poor, one gets the impression his poetry is not what he's actually known for. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that an indication that he had a substantial impact? Neljack (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not as a poet. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well some of the political impact does seem to have been through his poetry, which was quite political. Anyway, what would matter if most of his impact was as an activist? Surely we assess people just the same, whatever field their impact was in. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• And why, pray thee, would he have been selected as an ambassador, if he wasn't already known? Wikimedia Indonesia has a "free knowledge" ambassador, Christian Sugiono, and he was known as an actor well before he was taken on by WMId. Gita Gutawa was "educational ambassador" for a cigarette company, etc. I'm assuming that similar positions are awarded in Egypt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would have posted this, were it not for the fact that the article is comprised of two sections without a single reference between them. Stephen 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Link o death sectionLihaas (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Seems fairly notable in his field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Attention needed' to the article. I oppose this, but I just went to the article to see if it could be marked ready in light of the obvious support. However, the article is orange tagged, and the early life section (the largest by far) has not a single ref, and the Duo section has only one ref among its three paragraphs. I don't read Arabic script myself, so someone else will have to address this for the article to be ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2

---

[Closed] First Iceland Police shooting death

Turner Prize

Nominator's comments: Art is not important enough for ITNR, but the Turner Prize has been posted in the past. Formerip (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certain this won't be accepted as it's dominated by Europeans, but for what it's worth, there's a half-decent winners article here for the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the disdain is for the rich-man's pointy prize, not for Europe. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not according to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 9#Add Turner Prize. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the winner is Canadian, French-Canadian, an AlienFrench...And yes, it is a rather snooty prize, one that isn't paid much attention to over here in truth. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you need to update her article, she's French, born in Lille and lives in London. Perhaps that odd combination makes her Canadian? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, her article is a stub, not even meeting the minimum ITN requirements, regardless of whether she sings God Save the Queen, the Hockey Song, or the Marseillaise. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the bold article (the proposed blurb doesn't even have one, hence why I suggested a half-decent article above), so while that's interesting, along with the red link, it's not really important. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Maybe we should replace the link to Laure Provost with one to the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, on grounds that Channel4's ads for their show about the Prize always told us it was to be awarded in 'Derry-Londonderry', and when we had finished a long and meaningless argument on the pros and cons of this suggestion, as an act of artistic homage to 'Fountain' (which, you ignorant philistines, was simultaneously a factory-made urinal and a famous artwork by Marcel Duchamp), we could submit a printout of our argument as a work of Visual Conceptual Art that fully deserved to win the 2014 Turner Prize, due to having at least as much artistic merit as some of the previous winners, while adding that anybody who failed to appreciate the undoubted universal importance of our work was obviously just a philistine and thus clearly not worth listening to :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In case anybody doesn't understand what I'm trying to illustrate with the above, my point is that, at least in my view, the Turner Prize doesn't belong in ITN because it is at best of highly doubtful significance even to the British art world, let alone to the rest of us, and all too often it seems to many (and probably most) people to be just an overhyped absurdity.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

agree with Tlhslobus, turner prize seems to be overhyped absurdity but could that be because we(?) are under educated with regard to art, is it important - dunno, I guess I end on weak support which is a bit of a surprise to me seeing as I am one of the 'most people' that think turner prize is absurd. EdwardLane (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Regardless of the demographics of the winners, this is perhaps the world's best known art prize. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Croatian voters reject same-sex marriage

December 1

---

[Posted] Jade Rabbit

Nominator's comments: China's first moon lander.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support but would like to see something about the launch in the main article rather than the single sentence in the lede (or am I missing something?) GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support though I am not a massive fan of the current lede either Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wait. The probe will land on the Moon in a couple of weeks (16 Dec). It makes more sense to post it then, when we know whether it successfully lands or not. That point will qualify under WP:ITNR, but the launch does not. It also gives some time for the article to be improved, now that many more sources have suddenly become available (the Chinese have been a bit secretive about the details before now). Modest Genius ^talk 14:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per nom.--Somchai Sun (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Missions to land on other celestial bodies are notable, especially if a first for China. If this wasn't their first effort to do so I would support waiting for the landing or failure(to post per ITNR). 331dot (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• I will also go with wait (I was thinking to nominate it myself). Successful landing is more significant than the launch and they are weeks apart so this does not really qualify for two blurbs (as opposed to, say, New Horizons that take years to reach the goal. Moon is near.) --Tone 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't outright oppose waiting, though I don't think this would require two separate blurbs; you could replace this one with the next one. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait per Tone. Although, when I saw "Jade Rabbit" on my watchlist, I came here all prepared to oppose RD for a porn star... Formerip (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm cool with waiting. Just a quick question, did we post the launch of the Mars Science Laboratory prior to the successful landing of Curiosity? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We posted it both times but there were 10 months in between. Here it's 2 weeks. --Tone 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, so there's a defined minimum then? And hey, it might not make it, so posting the successful launch seems worthy enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
      • If it does fail, that would probably still be ITN-worthy. --W. D. Graham 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support posting twice, now and at landing, per TRM. This is a first-ever for China, and the launch and landing are separate accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support posting twice per TRM, Medeis, & 331dot. Ryan Vesey 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ready this is at least minimally updated with text and sources, and well supported for listing now.
• Support Successful launch (also would support the actual landing if/when it happens). CaptRik (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wait landing is just two weeks away and far more significant. --W. D. Graham 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent for listing such launches and arrivals, such as the Dawn Spacecraft visiting Vesta and Ceres. First launches are also listed at ITN/R, not that I support an automatic listing based on ITN/R for anything--but it does show precedent. Given the wide coverage and reader interest this should go up now, rather than later. I think it is absurd toassume we wouldn't, for example, publish the first launch of a moon lander if it were the US or Britain doing it now. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The fallacy with that precedent is that it is based on events which occured many months or years apart, not two weeks which is the case here. The ITNR for first launches is for the very first launch made by a country, something which China acheived in 1970 - in fact they're pretty close to number 200. Arrival at the moon is ITNR. --W. D. Graham 20:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

All of those 'precedents' took many months or years to reach their destination, not less time than it takes an item to cycle off ITN! Modest Genius^talk 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But much like the collapse of the building in Latvia followed by the resignation of the government, both of which were posted in quick succession at ITN, there's no good reason to delay posting one ITN event for one that may happen a week or two later. Or is that in a guideline that I missed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could the government's collapse have been predicted at the time of the building collapsing, though? --W. D. Graham 22:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that it's not a massive problem at all to have two blurbs a few weeks apart relating to the same subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply launching for the moon is a rather major accomplishment, and the consensus is 8 for posting and 3 for waiting, so further argument and delay are unnecessary. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) [I know it's moot, but I missed Tone's wait vote, so it was actually 4 waits. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)]

• Support - Let's post it now. We have consensus and the opposers, in my view, don't make a good case for a delay. Jusdafax 01:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Metro-North Railroad crash

[Posted] Thai protests

Nominator's comments: Now looks like a significant development there (and the nation shows how to protest correctly). Brandmeister^talk 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Not sure about the blurb. The seizure of government buildings have been serially occurring since last Monday. Yesterday four people died as a result of fighting between anti- and pro-government groups, and today has seen (so far) non-violent clashes between protesters and the police.[69] Either should probably be mentioned in the blurb. A body has also been discovered in a bus fire near a pro-government protest site, though the details on this are still unclear.[70] Also, thanks to Brandmeister for helping update the article (though I don't necessarily agree with the "protesting correctly" comment). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer different blurb. Suggest something along the lines of

• Thai police use tear gas against anti-government protesters trying to raid the Government House. Or
• Clashes between anti-government protesters and government supporters leave four dead and fifty-seven injured in Bangkok. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - definitly a story for ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• obvious support as I mntioned in the Ukraine one. But remove the tv building from blurb as a lot more important buidlings were udner siege (the finance or foreign ministry was first). Pperhaps add the update from today where the protest leaders met Sinawatra and said they would only stop on her resignationLihaas (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban said that he would not stop even with her resignation. (They're demanding something called a "People's Council".) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Major protests causing significant political and economic instability, as well as getting widespread international media attention. Neljack (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Important and significant news story. Article appears to be in decent shape. Tweak the blurb and post it. Jusdafax 08:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 09:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would still prefer a different blurb (and two other editors appear to agree above). I've suggested two alternatives above. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll change to the second altblurb. --Tone 09:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Paul Walker

Nominator's comments: He was an actor best known for starring in The Fast and Furious film series. Andise1 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ironic? yes. Encyclopedic? Influential? No. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Medeis here. I think it would be difficult to argue that he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field. He was hardly in the top rank of actors, either in terms of acclaim or of fame. Neljack (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wide news coverage worldwide. The actor was in the middle of filming Fast & Furious 7, while Fast & Furious 6 has just been released. And as is always the case when an actor passes away, TV stations worldwide end up broadcasting tons of films in tribute. Wes Mᴥuse 05:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Even Indian and Chinese TV stations? (That's a third of the world's population.) How about middle eastern ones? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. I can't say how it's hitting news media in China, but the death sure made it to [Chinese], not forgetting [Spanish]. Anyway, who says [English] is world-wiki? It's the page for speakers and readers of English and need only reflect the broad interests of those people.Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To flesh out remarks by Wes, F&F 4 was a big hit worldwide: "As of 27 July 2011 the film had grossed a total of $155,064,265 in the United States and $363,164,265 worldwide (making it the third most successful film in the franchise behind Fast & Furious 6 and Fast Five) and is the fourth highest-grossing film in the car genre, behind Fast & Furious 6, Fast Five and Cars". Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What does "worldwide" mean? How much of the world never saw it? China? India? That's a third of it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL? F&F was massive in India, I'm not sure how it worked in China, but "worldwide" in this context means that it covered more than just the US.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A big celebrity but far from a leader in the field; his death would have gotten significant news coverage but its being more on the irony of his death that is being used to propagate the story. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. My first reaction was no. But then I remember we posted Cory Monteith, who was famous for a single American television show, so fair is fair. Those shitty racing movies have done a lot of worldwide box office. Gamaliel(talk) 06:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Which posting has been acknowledged as a mistake and one we are trying to avoid. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • According to WP:ITND a death article needs to meet one of the 3 criterion. 1: The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region? No. 2: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field? Debatable. What one sees as an important figure, may not be see by another as such importance. 3: The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion? Questionable. The actor was in the middle of filming 'Fast 7', and also starred in 'Fast 6' which has only just been released worldwide. His death will in fact have some impact on the filming of 'Fast 7' as he is no longer alive. So of the 3 criteria, 1 has failed, but 2 are 50/50 depending on which side of the coin you wish to view. Although wouldn't this get mentioned in the deaths section anyway? If so, then I would reconsider my "support!" option. Wes Mᴥuse 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Gamaliel. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, Never been given any awards for acting, known for a single role, no impact outside of a single movie series. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Never been given any awards for acting? Ha, for real? So the 5 he won between 2000 - 2003 are not awards for acting are they? I must have dreamt him receiving those then. WesMᴥuse 09:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • My bad, I should have specified awards that matter. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, ironic and interesting, but not enyclopedic.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If he has an article here, it's "encyclopedic". If you don't feel he should have an article here, then propose its deletion. The point of ITN is to highlight articles about events that are in the news. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting take. I will say that if Death of Paul Walker is created, I certainly will propose its deletion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not my "take", it's what ITN is for. (From the WP:ITN page: The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.) I further was not proposing a new article, the suggested article is Walker's article. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Then our views differ simply on what's meant by "substantially" and "wide".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess so; I think that worldwide coverage suggests substantial and wide interest. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is the top headline story on NBC News and near the top on CNN, and also being mentioned in media around the world(France, Spain, China, India, even Sri Lanka). Part of the role of ITN is to highlight articles about events that are in the news, which this clearly is. It isn't for us to judge the reasons that media gives coverage to an event- but it is for us to help readers find information. I never watched a F and F movie and did not hear of this man- until I saw this nomination and viewed the article. That should be what we want for most articles. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, One can debate his influence and any interest in this event, but saying that this is "unencyclopedic" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If he has an article, it is encyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• OpposeI am torned about this one, on one side he has done some huge films but on the other side he was never a "academy award winning actor" or if to be honest a truly outstanding actor within is genre. I think this unfortunatly is a case of Americanism. I have to oppose this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not just being covered in America, but around the world. Even if it is "Americanism", objections relating to an event being from a single country are not valid. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but you are in my opinion wrong if you claim that if Paul had been Swedish this would have been place at ITN. It is Americanised-centrism. Anyway, sad case.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the Swedish movie industry on par with the Hollywood movie industry? It's not America's fault that Hollywood is in America, or that its movie industry gets more attention than others. It's the people's fault(for watching American movies). 331dot (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Whether you like it or not, Walker has become a pretty big deal. He is the primary star of a multi-billion-dollar media franchise, and not just in America. I think it deserves listing in RD. This is from someone who is not an F&F fan. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 10:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't imagine many people care for the Fast and Furious series, but you're kidding yourself if you think this is not in the news. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unquestionably in the news, and his death will have a significant impact on a major Hollywood film currently production so imho criteria 3 is met. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not what's meant by "a major international impact that affects current events". Page says that the film is in post, which would mean he finished filming his scenes. It's a movie sequel, not an international peace conference, or what have you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support – The death is covered by the world media, including Indian and Chinese. — Bill william compton^Talk 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Marking ready. Hot Stop talk-contribs 11:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the problem with the film industry is that it is basically impossible to agree on whether 90% of actors are "important figures in their field." He might not be Jack Nicholson, but he was the star of a blockbuster film series and definitely died in an unexpected fashion. --PlasmaTwa2 14:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not going to oppose or support but I will side with the argument that he's not 'important in his field'. There are simply too many actors who were stars of a reasonably popular tv/movie series of a similar prominance to Walker. The argument for posting surely hinges on the early unexpected death (and this has long been considered a factor for deaths at ITN) and the impact his death will have on upcoming films.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• I wanna use the Walt Bellamy/Bill Sharman argument I used: he's not even the most famous actor from the series, but unlike those two whose news of their respective deaths were very largely confined to NBA media, Walker's death was covered in mainstream media in several other countries. So to deny that this isn't "news" (YADDA YADDA WE'RE NOT A NEWS SERVICE) is like denying UCI Road World Championships is news in the mainstream media. With that said, this is NOT your textbook RD. RD wasn't made for people who weren't anyone that isn't one of the three criteria -- Walker wasn't -- so RD's out of the question in this case. –HTD 15:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as not noteworthy and encyclopedic enough, especially as the death of internationally acclaimed director Nagisa Oshima wasn't posted. If an actor that died yesterday was to be featured on RD, Jean Kent is the better candidate. Prolog (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not meet the death criteria. Period, end of story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I find it nearly laughable to suggest Walker is not on par with Arik Einstein. Period, get it done.—John Cline (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD. I am with 331 on this one.. calling it unencyclopedic doesnt make sense since it has an article which i dont think is up for deletion. Is it in the news? Yes. The death was unexpected as well. He is well known actor too. Nobody is saying put a blurb but for RD this should be good to go -- Ashish-g55 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support RD "Important" is not necessarily synonymous with "critically acclaimed". Teemu08 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose does not meet criteria. SeraV (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Press Release the comments above that this is getting worldwide coverage are not very helpful. The worldwide coverage consists of 'stories' based on AP reports and photos available from prior press releases for highly marketed but not critically respected movies. It is almost like a character from Grand Theft Auto 'died'. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's rubbish. Major independent news outlets are publishing this story. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The sloppy use of "worldwide" in this discussion isn't helpful. And if this guy had died of something boring like, say, kidney failure, this would be making far less news. It's only heading to RD if anywhere, so cause of death shouldn't matter, but it's "big" news because it was a car smash. Some objectivity here, please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support but only per the Cory Monteith precedent. Spencer^T♦C 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Spencer, the precedent has been set. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posting per the Glee precedent and suitable consensus here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Because you are involved in this discussion and have expressed your support for this nomination, I have pulled this for now. It should be left to an uninvolved administrator to judge consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Like you, you mean User:Bongwarrior? So get on with it and "judge consensus" or can you not do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I concede TRM has been involved with this nomination(obviously), but recently there has been a shortage of admins around(or at least uninvolved admins) to post things. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Rambler - That's a bad faith posting, coming immediately after failing to understand that a post of mine was a response to one of yours. You should not have re-indented mine AND posted this in the same action. You took a guess, and were wrong. That invalidates the posting! And are you trying to be pointy with the Glee reference? Do you care at all about our systemic bias? Do we all now just run with the Glee precedent for deciding all future nominations? HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay everyone, slow hand clap to you all. Just waiting for User:Bongwarrior to do something pro-active rather than just whinge (like you guys). Can anyone tell me that there's no consensus to post here? Are we really going to wait another six hours for these 11 characters to be posted to the main page, despite the consensus here? Really bad call from User:Bongwarrior who suddenly declares that he'll do whatever he wants. Pathetic call and bad for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Posting based on consensus to post, and to support the primary goal of ITN, being to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". Stephen 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Tabu Ley Rochereau

Nominator's comments: Tabu Ley was an extremely culturally influential musician and one of the last figures from the "Glory Days" of African Rumba (itself a major genre) in the 1950s and 60s. He was dubbed the "King of Congolese Rumba" and was probably one of the leading figures in the Democratic Republic of Congo. His music was amazingly popular in (particularly Francophone) Africa, and was also known internationally. His death is currently circulating on all African news outlets as a major event, with his state funeral planned soon. --Brigade Piron (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I might could support this, but the article needs a little work. The worst part is it lacks a list of works and awards. It is hard to make a judgment just because someone is prolific. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that lists of works and awards are good - a lot of articles about popular musicians become bloated with them. And if you want evidence that he was more than just prolific, have a look at this article.[71] He played a major role in popularising Congolese rumba and was huge throughout Africa. Neljack (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose then, Neljack, because if he has no works or awards worth noting he has no notability worth ITN. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, μηδείς. All I was saying was that lists are not necessarily the best way to cover awards and works. Certainly any important awards and works should be covered in the article. And the articles does refer to some of his songs, as well as containing a short list of awards, though I agree that it still needs more work. Neljack (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also just say that music "Awards" are primarily awarded in Europe and the US. Not in Africa, and certainly not in the DRC. He does have medals, if that helps? Brigade Piron (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Should be a no-brainer for Recent Deaths - he was clearly a very important figure in his field. One of Africa's most popular and celebrated musicians. Neljack (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what evidence, Neljack? It's not in the article, and you've just said such evidence is not even necessary or a good thing to have. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained above, I haven't said that. Regarding the evidence, please see the AFP story I linked to above and other news stories. Neljack (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Also μηδείς, have a glance at some of these articles from the Los Angeles Times about his career [1]. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't oppose this per se. I just think the above cited material should be added to the article, per the ITN guidelines and as good wikipediing. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Neljack. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, massively influential figure in his field, not just anyone gets a state funeral. Also per Neljack. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support- It is very rare for a musician in his genre to be internationally renowned. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. --Tone 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)